Case Name: Dutch Henry v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 61 Tex. Crim. 187
Docket Number: No. 921
Parties: Dutch Henry v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 187–190

Head Matter:
Dutch Henry v. The State.
No. 921.
Decided February 8, 1911.
Rehearing granted March 8, 1911.
1. —local Option—Recognizance—Reinstatement.
In an appeal from a misdemeanor, where the recognizance was insufficient and the appeal was dismissed, the same was reinstated upon the filing of a sufficient recognizance.
2. —Same—Election Contest—No law in Force.
Where the local option election under which defendant was convicted was contested in a direct proceeding and finally decided to be void and invalid, of which the Court of Criminal Appeals was properly advised in the record, the cause will be reversed and dismissed for want of a local option law in force at the time of the prosecution.
Appeal from the County Court of Potter. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Jeter.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $20 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Cooper, Merrill & Lumpkin, for appellant.
—On the question of no law in force at the time of the prosecution: McGuire v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 38; Savage v. Umphres, 131 S. W. Rep., 291.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
—On question of insufficient recognizance: Weil v. State, 91 S. W. Rep., 231; May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196, 49 S. W. Rep., 402; Parrish v. State, 82 S. W. Rep., 517; Hart v. State, 84 S. W. Rep., 592.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
—Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law. The motion made by the Assistant Attorney-General to dismiss this appeal is based upon an insufficient recognizance. An inspection of that part of the record discloses that the motion is well taken. The recognizance recites that appellant stands charged with the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a local option territory and has been convicted of said offense. The recognizance does not recite, as the statutory form requires, that he was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor does it recite the amount of his punishment. This is necessary, especially that the amount of the punishment be stated in the recognizance. There are quite a number of cases, supporting the above conclusion, decided by this court.
Because of the insufficiency of the recognizance the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.