Case Name: John Thomas v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-24
Citations: 66 Tex. Crim. 472
Docket Number: No. 1738
Parties: John Thomas v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
John Thomas v. The State.
No. 1738.
Decided April 24, 1912.
Rehearing Granted May 15, 1912.
1. —Local Option—Recognizance.
A recognizance which does not recite that defendant was convicted, and fails to state the amount of the punishment assessed is insufficient, however, upon filing a sufficient recognizance the appeal is reinstated.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Agency.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the court authorized the jury in his charge to convict on testimony not raised by the record, the same was reversible error.
3. —Same—Insufficiency of o the Evidence.
See opinion where the Presiding Judge deems the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Appeal from the County Court of Sabine. Tried below before the Hon. J. H. McGown.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $100 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the ease.
Hamilton & Minton, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
There is in the record what purports to be a recognizance but which does not comply with the statute. It recites, among other things, that appellant stands charged with the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors by indictment. It does not recite that he was convicted, nor does it recite the amount of punishment assessed. This • does not meet the , requirements of the statute.
The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal' for want of legal and sufficient recognizance will he sustained and the appeal will he dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Dismissed.