Case Name: ENGMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 135 S.W. 565
Docket Number: 
Parties: ENGMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
ENGMAN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 8, 1911.)
1. Criminal Raw (§ 1076 ) — Appeal—Recognizance — Sufficiency.
Under Code Or. Proc. 1895, arts. 8S7, 888, providing for the forms of recognizance on appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor, a recognizance conditioned that the defendant who stands charged with unlawfully carrying a pistol and who has been convicted shall appear, etc., is insufficient, as it fails to recite that defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor, as unlawfully carrying-a pistol is not an offense.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716; Dec. Dig. 1076.*]
2. Criminal Law <§ 1076 ) — Recognizance— Sufficiency.
A recognizance on conviction of a misdemeanor is insufficient under Code Or. Proc. 1895, art. 887, which does not state the fine or penalty assessed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716; Dec. Dig. 1076. ]
8. Weapons (§ 17 ) — Instructions to Jury.
In a prosecution for carrying a pistol, where the evidence showed that the defendant loaned his pistol to a certain woman, who carried it to her room, and, when he was arrested, he was there to take it home, it was error. to charge that, if defendant “bona fide loaned” the pistol he would have a right to carry it home, as, if he loaned the pistol, he had a right either to send or go for it, whether it was loaned in good faith or not.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. §§ 20-83; Dec. Dig. § 17. ]
Appeal from Potter County Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
Frank Engman was convicted of carrying on and about his person a pistol, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Cooper & Stanford, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER In Deo. Dig. & Am, Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for want of a sufficient recognizance.
Omitting formal parts of the recognizance, it is in the following language: "Conditioned that the said Frank Engman, who stands charged in this court with the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and who has been convicted of said offense in this court, shall appear," etc. This recognizance fails to recite, as required by the present statute, first, that appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor; second, it fails to state the amount of the punishment, which is also a requisite of the present statute. Unlawfully carrying a pistol is not an offense, and does not sufficiently recite an offense under any of our decisions or statutes. Prior to the present form of recognizance, as prescribed by the Legislature, this character of recitation of the offense has always been held .insufficient. The motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken, and will be sustained. In support of the first proposition — that is, that the recognizance fails to describe an offense—see Swain v. State, 88 S. W. 609; Lowery v. State, 38 S. W. 609; Cannady v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 123, 38 S. W. 610; Walker v. State, 56 S. W. 913; McDade v. State, 56 S. W. 916; Beck v. State, 56 S. W. 917; articles 887 and 888 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the second proposition — that is, that the recognizance must state the fine or penalty assessed — see article 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1895; Acts of the 25th Legislature, 1897, p. 5.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is in all things sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed!