Case Name: EATON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-11
Citations: 215 S.W. 100
Docket Number: No. 5408
Parties: EATON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
EATON v. STATE.
(No. 5408.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 11, 1919.
On Motion to Reinstate, Oct. 8, 1919.)
1. Bail c&wkey;65 — Recognizance failing to STATE PUNISHMENT FATALLY DEFECTIVE.
Recognizance, on appeal in a criminal case, which fails to recite the amount of punishment assessed, is fatally defective.
On Motion to Reinstate.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>94 — Criminal district COURT HAS NOT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF PROSECUTION FOR SELLING ADULTERATED MILK.
Under Acts 85th Leg. (1918, 4th Called Sess.) c. 28, creating criminal district court of Bowie county and giving it jurisdiction of all misdemeanor cases of which the county court “may now have exclusive jurisdiction,” the criminal district court had not original jurisdiction of prosecution -for selling adulterated milk, justice court having jurisdiction thereof in view of Pen. Code 1911, arts. 698-716, prescribing punishment of fine of not more than $200.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
J. E. Eaton was charged with the offense of selling adulterated milk, and from judgment rendered he appeals.
Reversed, and case ordered dismissed.
Todd, Graham & Williams, of Texarkana, for appellant. ,
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
This is a companion case to caus.es Nos. 5407 and 5409, J. E. Eaton v. State, 215 S. W. 99, 101, this day decided.
The recognizance herein fails to recite the amount of punishment assessed, and for this, reason is fatally defective.
The appeal will be dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate.
This case was dismissed at the last term of this court, because of a defective recognizance. Motion is now made to reinstate the .case, and, as the same is accompanied by a ' sufficient recognizance, said motion is hereby granted and the case considered on its merits.
The record discloses that the case, originated in the criminal district court of Bowie county, Tex., appellant being there charged with the offense of selling adulterated milk, said offense being punishable, under the provisions of chapter 2, tit. 12, of our Penal Code, by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $200.
Under our Constitution and laws, jurisdiction is given both to the county and justice courts for prosecutions for offenses whose punishment is by fine alone, when the maximum amount thereof does not exceed $200. The county court has not exclusive jurisdiction of such cases. Our attention is called to the fact that the framers of chapter 28 of the Acts of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature (4th Called Sess.) in creating the criminal district court of Bowie County, Tex., saw fit, in fixing its misdemeanor jurisdiction, to give it original jurisdiction only in all misdemeanor cases of which the county court of Bowie county "may now have exclusive jurisdiction." We are unable to see how this language can be construed in any way except to prevent said criminal district court of Bowie county from having original jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases punishable by fine only, where the maximum punishment is $200. The instant case being of that description, we hold that the trial court was without origin'al jurisdiction, and the case is reversed and ordered dismissed.
There is no necessity for passing upon 'the other questions raised.
<&wkey;Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and rndexes