Case Name: Sil Martoni v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-05-06
Citations: 74 Tex. Crim. 64
Docket Number: No. 3094
Parties: Sil Martoni v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 64–65

Head Matter:
Sil Martoni v. The State.
No. 3094.
Decided May 6, 1914.
1. —Vagrancy-—Recognizance—Re-instatement.
Where the appeal was dismissed on the ground of an insufficient recognizance and a sufficient recognizance was thereafter filed, the appeal is reinstated.
2. —Same—Date of Offense.
Having specified the time at which defendant was a vagrant, the State was confined thereto as set forth in the complaint, there being no evidence showing that he was in the house of prostitution during the other dates.
3. —Same—Judgment—Evidence—Trial de Novo.
Where defendant had been convicted for vagrancy in the corporation court and had appealed to the County Court, it was reversible error to admit the judgment of conviction in said corporation court in evidence, this being a trial de novo.
4. —Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of vagrancy, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, there was reversible error.
Appeal from the County Court of Bowie. Tried below before tho Hon. Lee Tidwell.
Appeal from a conviction of vagrancy; penalty, a fine of $125.
The opinion states the case.
F. M. Broolcs and Rogers & Borough, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Ellis v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Bep., 480, 145 S. W. Bep., 339.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
On motion of the Assistant Attorney General this appeal will have to be dismissed. The recognizance fails to specify the amount of the punishment imposed in the trial court. This is a statutory requirement, without which the recognizance will not be sufficient. For this reason the motion will be sustained and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.