Case Name: MARTONI v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-04-15
Citations: 166 S.W. 1169
Docket Number: No. 3094
Parties: MARTONI v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 166
Pages: 1169–1170

Head Matter:
MARTONI v. STATE.
(No. 3094.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 15, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 6, 1914.)
1. Bail (§ 65*) — Recognizance on Appeal-Dismissal.
Where the recognizance fails to specify the punishment imposed in the trial court, an accused’s appeal must be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65.*]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Vagrancy (§ 3*) — Evidence—Admissibility.
Under an indictment, charging vagrancy for loitering in a disorderly house from the 1st of October until the date of the filing of the complaint, evidence that accused was seen in disorderly houses more than a year before is inadmissible, where there was no showing that he was at such places between that time and the time specified in the complaint.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vagrancy, Cent. Dig. § 3; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1139*) — Evidence—Admissibility.
On appeal from a conviction in the corporation court, accused is entitled to a trial de novo in the county court, and hence the judgment rendered against him in the corporation court is inadmissible.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 1139.*]
4. Vagrancy (§ 3*) — Prosecution—Evidence.
Evidence in a prosecution for vagrancy for loitering in disorderly houses held insufficient to support a conviction.
[Ed. Nóte. — For other cases, see Vagrancy, Cent. Dig. § 3; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]-
Appeal from Bowie County Court; Lee Tidwell, Judge.
Sil Martoni was convicted of vagrancy, and lie appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
F. M. Brooks and Rogers & Dorough, all of Texarkana, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
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.