Case Name: HARDEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 136 S.W. 768
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARDEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 136
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
HARDEN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing, March 1, 1911.
On State’s Motion for Rehearing, April 19, 1911.)
1. Bail (§ 65 ) — Appea:>-Insufficient Recognizance — Motion to Dismiss.
Where a recognizance fails to state the amount of a fine or punishment assessed against defendant, and does not conclude with the words “in this case,” as prescribed by Code Cr. Proe. 1895, ,art. 887, his appeal will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing.
2. Indictment and Infokmation (§ 122 )— Sufficiency of Accusation — v akiance Between Complaint and Infokmation.
A complaint charged a violation of Pen. •Code 1895, art. 359, as amended by Acts 30th Leg. c. 132, and alleged that defendant kept a disorderly house where “spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors-were sold and kept for sale without a license first having been obtained under the laws of the state of Texas to retail such liquors,” and that he was concerned in selling intoxicating liquors without a license, while the information charged only a violation ■of the local option law, without any reference to the law in respect to disorderly houses. Held, that the information was bad, for not being predicated upon the complaint, and for not charging the same offense as that charged by the complaint.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 321-325; Dec. Dig. § 122. ]
3. Intoxicating Biquors (§ 232 ) — Criminal Prosecutions — Information — Designation of Purchaser.
An information for violating the local option law, charging that “Reagan Harden did •then and there unlawfully sell to Reagan Harden intoxicating liquors,” etc., is bad, since a sale, to be in violation of law, must be to some person other than the seller.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Biquors, Cent. Dig. § 292; Dec. Dig. § 232. ]
On State’s Motion for Rehearing.
■4. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236 ) — Offenses —Keeping Disorderly House or Liquor Nuisance.
Evidence in a prosecution for keeping a •disorderly house where intoxicating liquors were •sold without a license held insufficient to sustain a conviction.
[Ed. .Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 311; Dec. Dig. § 236. ]
Appeal from County Court, Potter County; "W. M. Jeter, Judge.
Reagan Harden was convicted of a violation of the! local option law, and he appeals. Motion to dismiss the appeal sustained, and .appeal dismissed. New recognizance filed, .and case reinstated for a rehearing upon the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
Reeder & .-Graham, for appellant.. C. E. Lane, Asst, Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cáseseos .same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
' DAVIDSON, P. J.
Motion is made by ithe Assistant Attorney General to dismiss this appeal because the recognizance contained in the record does not comply with Acts 25th Leg. 1897, c. 5, and the prescribed form as found in article 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recognizance in this particular case fails to recite the amount of the fine or punishment assessed against appellant, and it also fails to conclude with the words "in this case," as is prescribed in said form. The motion is well taken. Walker v. State, 56 S. W. 913; McDade v. State, 56 S. W. 916; Beck v. State, 56 S. W. 917; Adams v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 534, 72 S. W. 588.
' The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.