Case Name: BETHUNE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-02
Citations: 254 S.W. 798
Docket Number: No. 7692
Parties: BETHUNE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 798–800

Head Matter:
BETHUNE v. STATE.
(No. 7692.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 2, 1923.
Reinstated and Affirmed June 27, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1923.)
1. Bail <&wkey;65 — Recognizance should show appellant was convicted.
On appeal the recognizance should show appellant has been convicted, in view of Code Cr. Proc. arts. 902, 903.
2. Bail <&wkey;65 — Appeal dismissed for insufficiency of recognizance.
State’s motion to dismiss appeal for insufficiency of the recognizance granted where recognizance charged accused with an, offense, instead of stating he was convicted, in view of Code Cr. Proc. arts. 902, 903.
On the Merits.
3. Criminal law t&wkey;l 119(2) — Assignment of error in cross-examination not considered for insufficiency of facts disclosed in bill of exceptions.
Objection to inquiry on cross-examination of accused not considered where bill of excep tions complaining of the question and accused’s affirmative answer did not .disclose any of the surrounding facts.
4. Criminal law &wkey;>36i(l) — State could show why it did not call on witness to disprove accused’s alibi.
Where accused by his own testimony introduced J. as the person in whose company he was on the date and during the time the alleged offense was committed, it was relevant for the state to show accused’s relations with J. to show the reason why the state did not call on J. to disprove accused’s alibi.
5. Criminal law 4&wkey;938(l)— New tria! for newly discovered evidence denied for want of diligence and because testimony cumulative.
Motion for new trial based on affidavit of certain witness, and the fact that accused’s counsel died and accused did not know of it until 20 days before trial, denied as not showing the required diligence, and for the reason that the witness’ testimony would be cumulative of that of another witness.
Appeal from. District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Bob Bethune was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
Affirmed.
J. W. Culwéll, of Amarillo, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The state objects to the consideration of the case on its merits for the reason that the purported recognizance is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. The recognizance found in the record seems to have followed the statute relating to recognizance preliminary to trial. On appeal the recognizance should show that the appellant has been convicted. The one before us states that he was charged with an offense, but makes no mention of the conviction. The form and substance of a recognizance are statutory and are set out in articles 902 and 903 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The state's motion to dismiss must therefore be sustained.
The appeal is dismissed.
<§xs»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes