Case Name: Jacob Bush v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-05-29
Citations: 68 Tex. Crim. 299
Docket Number: No. 1825
Parties: Jacob Bush v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 299–303

Head Matter:
Jacob Bush v. State.
No. 1825.
Decided May 29, 1912.
Rehearing granted November 27, 1912.
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquors Without License — Recognizance.
Where the appeal was dismissed on account of an insufficient recognizance, but a sufficient recognizance was filed thereafter, the appeal will be reinstated.
2. —Same—Charge of Court — Accomplice.
Where, upon trial of retailing intoxicating liquors without license in non-local option territory, the evidence showed that two of the-State’s witnesses were accomplices, a failure to charge on accomplice testimony as requested was reversible error.
3. —Same—As to Who Are Accomplices.
Where, upon trial of retailing intoxicating liquors without license, the evidence showed that two of the State’s witnesses upon whose testimony the conviction rested had agreed with the sheriff at the rate of three dollars per day to find violators of the liquor law, and that they induced defendant to sell liquor to them without having license to retail liquor in non-local option territory, they were accomplices and the court should have submitted the question of accomplice testimony.
4. —Same—Rule State.
Where a. party receives money for the purpose of inaugurating and bringing about violations of the law, and in accordance with such agreement, brings about such violation, he is an accomplice.
5. —Same—Distinction Drawn.
There is a distinction between parties who are playing the role of detective for the arrest and punishment of parties, and those who originate the crime or assist in originating it in the first instance; the latter are accomplices, while the former are not.
Appeal from the County Court of Dallas County at-Law. Tried below before the Hon. W. P. Whitehurst.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully retailing liquors without license; penalty, a fine of $500 and five days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the ease.
Lively, Nelms & Addams, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
— The appeal must be dismissed because of the insufficiency of the recognizance. That instrument fails to recite the amount of punishment assessed against appellant. This, under the statute and decisions, renders that instrument so defective that it cannot attach the jurisdiction of this court.
The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.
Prendergast, Judge, not sitting.