Case Name: DURST v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-11
Citations: 215 S.W. 221
Docket Number: No. 5410
Parties: DURST v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 221–221

Head Matter:
DURST v. STATE.
(No. 5410.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 11, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 8, 1919.)
1. Bail <&wkey;65 — Recognizance not stating PUNISHMENT FATALLY DEFECTIVE.
Where recognizance on appeal in a criminal case does not set out the amount of punishment assessed, as required by statute, the appeal will be dismissed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;93 — Criminal district
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PROSECUTIONS.FOR SIMPLE ASSAULT.
Criminal district court for Bowie county, having jurisdiction to try all misdemeanors of which the county court previous to creation of criminal district court had exclusive original jurisdiction, had no jurisdiction over prosecution for simple assault; county court’s jurisdiction to try simple assault cases having been concurrent with the justice court.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
Lee Durst was convicted of assault and battery, and he- appeals.
Reversed, and cause dismissed.
O. B. Pirkey, of New Boston, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
This conviction was for assault and battery.
The appeal must be dismissed for want of a sufficient recognizance. The statute requires the recognizance must se't out in the face of it the amount of punishment assessed against appellant. This recognizance fails to do this.
The appeal, therefore; will be dismissed.
igssFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes