Case Name: BERRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-01-30
Citations: 203 S.W. 901
Docket Number: No. 4854
Parties: BERRY v. STATE.
Judges: PEENDEEGAST, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 203
Pages: 901–903

Head Matter:
BERRY v. STATE.
(No. 4854.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 30, 1918.
On the Merits, Feb. 27, 1918.
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1918.)
1. Ball <&wkey;72 — Appeal — Recognizance — , Amendment.
Where one convicted of a misdemeanor entered into a recognizance without sureties, but deposited money equal to the amount of the recognizance, the appellate court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, under Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 920, but the appellate court may allow the appellant to amend by filing new bond or recognizance under article 923.
On the Merits.
2. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;236(13) — Liquid Sold — Prooe.
In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, evidence held sufficient to sustain finding that liquid sold was whisky, and not cider, although no one tasted it.
3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1056(l) — Exceptions— . Instructions.
In misdemeanor case, refusal of requested charge on circumstantial evidence cannot be reviewed, where there was no exception to the given charge for omission to charge on circumstantial evidence.
4. Judges <&wkey;49(l) — Disqualification — Prejudice.
Conditions given by Const, art. 5, § 11, for disqualification of a judge are exclusive, and prejudice of judge is not a ground for disqualification.
5. Jury <@=72(6) — Summoning Talesmen — Officer.
That a constable, who was a witness in a criminal case, summoned the talesmen was not error, especially in view of a qualification of the trial judge that the constable had been legally designated by the sheriff as the officer in attendance upon the court.
6. Criminal Law <&wkey;364(2) — Res Gestas — Statement by Accused.
In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, where witness went twice to defendant before getting liquor, a statement of defendant the first time that the whisky would be $1.25 a pint was admissible as part of the res gestae.
7. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;233(2) — Contents or Bottle — Evidence.
Where liquor defendant was selling was taken out of a box in a basket, evidence that the basket containing the box and bottles was after-wards examined on the same day and found to •contain 11 bottles of whisky was admissible on an issue as to the contents of the bottle sold.
8. Witnesses <§^269(10) — Cross-Examination — Scope.
Where county attorney testified that he received a pint bottle from prosecuting witness; that the next morning the defendant came in and told him that if he would open the bottle he would find it was not whisky; that when he looked he found it was.broken, and the liquid spilled smelled like cider — an effort to prove on cross-examination that defendant told him he had emptied out the whisky and put in cider before he sold it was not germane to the direct examination, and an objection was properly sustained.
9. Criminal Law <&wkey;413(l) — Self-Serving Declarations.
In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, declarations of defendant that he had emptied the whisky out of a bottle, and that it contained cider when sold, were inadmissible, being self-serving.
L0. Cbiminal Law <&wkey;1144(18) — Presumption-Motion jtor New Trial.
Whore evidence on hearing of a motion for a new trial was not preserved by bill of exceptions or statement of facts, it must be assumed that conclusions of the trial’ judge that facts aliunde the record set up in the motion were not sustained by the evidence were correct.
Appeal from Upshur County Court; W. H. McClelland, Judge.
Richard Berry was convicted of unlawful selling of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Briggs & Florence, of Gilmer, for' appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
MORROW, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction for a misdemeanor. Appellant gave timely notice of appeal, and entered into a recognizance, putting in the hands of the clerk of the court trying the case a sum of money equal to the amount of the recognizance, but failed to have sureties join him therein. Subsequently during the term he sought to amend the recognizance, and appeared in court with sufficient sureties, but his request to be permitted to enter into a new recognizance was denied by the court.
In the absence of a recognizance this court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a conviction for a misdemeanor where the appellant is at large. O. C. P. art. 020. By article 923 it is provided, however, that where a recognizance entered into within the time prescribed by law shall be determined by the court on appeal to be defective in form or substance, such appellate court may allow the appellant to amend such recognizance by filing a new bond or recognizance on such terms as the court may prescribe.
This court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and the motion to dismiss must be granted. Permission is given to appellant, however, to enter into a new recognizance as soon as the court trying the case is in session, and the trial judge is directed to permit him to enter into such new recognizance.
<S=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes