Case Name: WARNER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-05-20
Citations: 167 S.W. 1109
Docket Number: No. 3130
Parties: WARNER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 167
Pages: 1109–1110

Head Matter:
WARNER v. STATE.
(No. 3130.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 20, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 3, 1914.)
1. Bail (§ 65 ) — Recognizance on Appeal— Requisites and Sufficiency.
An appeal from a conviction for simple assault will be dismissed, where the recognizance fails to recite the punishment assessed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Cbiminal Law (§ 770 ) — Instbuctions— Issues and Theobies of Case.
On a trial for assault, where the evidence tended to show that accused and another took a boy against his will, opened his pants, and placed lard on his privates-, and that he was much mortified, while it was accused’s theory that the assaulted party and other boys were playing and scuffling, that the others had the assaulted party down, his breeches unbuttoned, and his private parts exposed, and that what he did was done in fun at the suggestion of one of the boys, without intent to injure the boy, and that it was not offensive to the boy, and the court submitted the state’s theory, it was error to refuse instructions submitting accused’s theory.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1806; Dec. Dig. § 770. ]
3. Indictment and Infobmation (§ 87 )— Sufficiency of Accusation — Time of Offense.
A complaint and information sworn to on July 1, 1913, charging the commission of an offense on July 29, 1913, was fatally defective.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 24<b-255; Dec. Dig. § 87. ]
Appeal from Angelina County Court; E. B. Robb, Judge.
Doc Warner was convicted of simple assault, and he appeals.
Reversed, and prosecution dismissed on rehearing.
W. J. Townsend, Jr., and Mantooth & Collins, all of Lufkin, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
This conviction was for simple assault. The recognizance fails to recite the punishment assessed against appellant. Upon this ground the Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal. Under the legislative prescribed form it is necessary to state the amount of the punishment in order to make a recognizance sufficient. The authorities are quite numerous, but unnecessary here to mention, which sustain the motion to dismiss.
Because the recognizance is insufficient in the respect mentioned, the appeal will be dismissed.