Case Name: ROBERT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-01-26
Citations: 234 S.W. 89
Docket Number: No. 5970
Parties: ROBERT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 234
Pages: 89–91

Head Matter:
ROBERT v. STATE.
(No. 5970.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 26, 1921.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 27, 1921. On State’s Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 5, 1921. Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1921.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
I. Bail <&wkey;66 — Recognizance on appeal held not to state conviction of any offense.
Recognizance on appeal conditioned that defendant, “who stands charged in this court with the offense of a violation of the liquor law, and who has been convicted of said offense in this court,” etc., held insufficient, since there is no such offense eo nomine as “violation of the liquor law,” under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903.
On State’s Motion for Rehearing.
2. Intoxicating Liquors <®=»224 — Burden on defendant to show case within statutory ex- . ception.
In a prosecution for manufacture of liquor under the Dean Act, when the evidence shows that the defendant manufactured liquor or possessed equipment for making liquor, then the burden is on the defendant to show that such manufacture or possession was for either mechanical, medicinal, scientific or sacramental purposes.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
P. Robert was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws, and appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 228 S. W. 230.
Harry C. Gerlaeh, P. C. Del Barto,, and P. Charles Hume, Jr., all of Houston, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
BATTIMORE, J.
In this case the state moves to dismiss the appeal because of a defective recognizance. Said recognizance is as follows:
"This day came into open court P. Robert, defendant in the above-entitled cause, who, together with Prank Bonno, Joe Navarro, and J. G. Trapolino, his sureties, and acknowledge themselves indebted to the state of Texas, m the'penal sum of two thousand ($2,000) dollars, conditioned that the said P. Robert, who stands charged in this court with the offense of violation of the liquor law, and who has been convicted of said offense in this court, shall appear before this court from day to day and from term to term of the same, and not depart without leave of this court, in order to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the state of Texas, at Austin, in this case."
It will he observed that this recognizance does not state that the appellant has been charged with or convicted of any offense known to our law. We have no such offense eo nomine as "violation of liquor law," nor does said recognizance set out whether said charge and conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor. Same is insufficient under our statutes and all the authorities. Article 903, C. C. P.; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 40, 219 S. W. 468; McKey v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 220 S. W. 549.
The motion is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes