Case Name: ORANGE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-10
Citations: 276 S.W. 710
Docket Number: No. 9160
Parties: ORANGE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 276
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
ORANGE v. STATE.
(No. 9160.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 10, 1925.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal June 24, 1925.
On the Merits, Oct. 21, 1925.)
Euteh & Cooper, of Henderson, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The recognizance recites that the appellant was convicted of the offense of "possessing a still." It does not state whether it was a still for manufacturing intoxicating liquor or for what purpose it was used. A recognizance, to give jurisdiction to this court where the accused is released, is required by statute to describe the offense. See article 903, C. C. P. Unless the offense is described in the recognizance, the appeal must he dismissed. See Hardin v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 460, 37 S. W. 735; McKey v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 220 S. W. 549; Singleton v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 221 S. W. 610; and other cases collated in Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, 1922 Supplement, p. 2628.
Upon the motion of the state, the appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
Permission is granted the appellant to file in the trial court a new bond in compliance with article 903, C. C. P., and to forward to this court a duly certified copy thereof within 15 days from this date, whereupon the dismissal will be set aside and the case reinstated ; otherwise the order of dismissal will become final. See article 923, C. C. P.