Case Name: Frank Engman v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 61 Tex. Crim. 496
Docket Number: No. 956
Parties: Frank Engman v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 496–498

Head Matter:
Frank Engman v. The State.
No. 956.
Decided February 8, 1911.
Rehearing Granted March 8, 1911.
1. —Carrying Pistol—Recognizance—Reinstatement of Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the recognizance failed to recite that appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, and to give the amount of the punishment, the case must be dismissed; inasmuch, however, as the appellant has filed a new recognizance according to law, the appeal will be reinstated.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Bona Fides.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the defense was that defendant loaned the pistol to another at whose house he was found, and where he was for the purpose of securing the pistol and take it home, it was reversible error in the court’s charge to instruct the jury that if defendant had “bona fide” loaned the pistol to said third party, etc., to acquit him, as it was not a question whether the pistol was loaned- in good faith or not.
Appeal from the County Court of Potter. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Jeter.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $100.
The opinion states the case.
Cooper & Stanford, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
—On question of defective recognizance: Swain v. State, 38 S. W. Rep., 609.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
—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 38 S. W. Rep., 609, 56 S. W. Rep., 913, 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; Acts of the Twenty-fifth Legislature, 1897.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is in all things sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed.