Case Name: FERGUSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-17
Citations: 147 S.W. 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: FERGUSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 147
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
FERGUSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 17, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 8, 1912.)
1. Bail (§ 64 ) — In Criminal Prosecutions —Recognizance—Requisites.
A recognizance which does not state the punishment assessed, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 919, is insufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 278; Dec. Dig. § 64. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1032 ) — Appeal—Reservation of Grounds of Review.
An objection to an indictment charging a violation of the local option law, on the ground that it does not allege the date of the.adoption of prohibition, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2627, 2628, 2642; Dec. Dig. § 1032. ]
3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236 ) — Violation of Local Option Law — Evidence.
To sustain a conviction for a violation of the local option law, it is necessary to prove its adoption.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236. ]
4. Criminal Law (§ 942 ) — New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence.
Where accused, charged with violating the local option law, did not know that prosecutor would testify that he purchased whisky from accused, and secured a bottle from a third person, who was present, and when prosecutor so testified accused could not obtain the attendance of the third person, who, if present, would testify that the prosecutor never obtained a bottle from him, and that the third person was never present when accused sold any whisky, accused was entitled to a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2316, 2331, 2332; Dec. Dig. § 942. ]
Appeal from Madison County Court; Tom D. Clark, Judge.
Rufus Ferguson was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Reversed, and remanded on rehearing.
J. M. Brownlee and Carl T. Harper, both of Madisonville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Big. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
The Assistant Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance is not in compliance with article 919 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recognizance does not state the punishment assessed, and the motion is sustained. May v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 49 S. W. 402; Johnson v. State, 49 S. W. 594; Martinez v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 532, 89 S. W. 642.
Appeal dismissed.