Case Name: Nellie Walker et al. v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1894-01-20
Citations: 32 Tex. Crim. 517
Docket Number: No. 241
Parties: Nellie Walker et al. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
Nellie Walker et al. v. The State.
No. 241.
Decided January 20.
Bail Bond—Judgment Final, Recitation of Offense in.—In a judgment. final on a forfeited bail bond executed for the appearance of a party to answer the charge of unlawfully carrying “ on and about the person a dirk,” where the offense is recited as carrying “on or about the person a dirk,” held, that the judgment recites no particular offense, because the offense is stated disjunctively. Following Hart v. The State, 2 Texas Cr. App., 39; Garza v. The State, 22 S. W. Rep., 139.
Writ of Error from the. County Court of Ellis. Tried below before Hon. B. McDaniel, County Judge.
Nellie Walker, being indicted for carrying on and about her person a dirk, executed a bail bond in the sum of $100, for her appearance to answer said indictment in the County Court. Failing to appear, the bond was forfeited against her and the sureties, and this writ of error is sued out by the sureties. The error complained of is, that the judgment final is fatally defective, because the offense as recited therein is that she was charged with the offense of “carrying on or about her person a dirk.”
M. B. Templeton, for plaintiff in error, cited Hart v. The State, 2 Texas Cr. App., 39; 1 Bish. Crim. Proc., secs. 585-591.
R. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The writ of error herein is prosecuted from a final judgment rendered upon the forfeiture of a bail bond, in which it is recited, that the principal was required to answer the offense of carrying " on or about her person a dirk." In the first error assigned it is con tended, that the said bond is not a valid undertaking in law, because it recites no offense against the penal laws of this State, in that the said offense is therein set out in the disjunctive. The point is well taken. Hart v. The State, 2 Texas Cr. App., 39; Garza v. The State, 22 S. W. Rep., 139.
We deem it unnecessary to notice the remaining question suggested. For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed; and because the bail bond is insufficient to constitute the basis of a judgment, the cause is dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Judges all present and concurring.