Case Name: THOMAS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-24
Citations: 147 S.W. 578
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMAS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 147
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 24, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 15, 1912.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Ckiminal Law (§ 1131 ) — Appeal—Dismissal — Reinstatement.
A criminal appeal, dismissed for want of a sufficient recognizance, may be reinstated upon motion, accompanied by a sufficient recognizance.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2971-2979, 2985; Dec. Dig. § 1131. ]
2. Intoxicating Liqttobs (§ 239 ) — Bkokebs —Instkuctions—Sale by Agent — Applicability to Evidence.
The evidence, in a prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicants, showed that the alleged purchaser asked accused if he could get him some whisky, and accused stated that he' might; whereupon the purchaser gave him a dollar, and accused went in search of whisky and returned with a bottle, and stated that he had paid $1.75 for it, using the other’s dollar and himself furnishing the remainder of the money, and the other party took a part of the whisky, and accused kept the remainder. The alleged purchaser did not know where accused obtained the bottle, except as accused told him. Accused also testified that he bought the whisky for himself and the alleged purchaser, and had no interest therein, except as he obtained by purchasing. Held, that the evidence did not authorize an instruction that accused would be guilty of violating the local option law; if he acted as an agent for the person selling the whisky.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 331-347; Dec. Dig. § 239. ]
3. Intoxicating Liquobs (§ 236 )— Local Option — Sufficiency op Evidence.
Evidence, in a prosecution for violating the local option law, held not to justify a conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236. ]
Appeal from Sabine County Court; J. H. McGown, Judge.
John Tilomas was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicants, and he appeals.
Reversed.
Hamilton & Minton, of Hemphill, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
There is in the record what purports to be a recognizance, but which does not comply with the statute. It recites, among other things, that appellant stands charged with the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors by indictment. It does not recite that he was convicted; nor does it' recite the amount of punishment assessed. This does not meet the requirements of the statute.
The motion of the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for want of a legal and sufficient recognizance will be sustained, and the appeal will be dismissed; and it is accordingly so ordered.