Case Name: HENRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 135 S.W. 571
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 571–573

Head Matter:
HENRY v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 15, 1911.)
1. Ball (§ 66 ) — Appeal — Recognizance — Sufficiency.
A recognizance on appeal from a conviction of violating the local option law, which recites that appellant stands charged with unlawfully selling intoxicants in local option territory and has been convicted of such offense, but does not recite, as the statutory form requires, that he was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor the amount of his punishment, is insufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 279-283; Dee. Dig. § 66. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1181 ) — Appeal—Change in State -of Facts — Invalidation of Local Option Election.
While the local option law provides that one may be prosecuted for selling intoxicants in territory where an election has been held under the local option law and the result has been declared favorable to the law, and' that the fact that a contest is invoked will not prevent a conviction during such contest, a conviction pending such contest cannot stand, where the local option election has been held invalid' by the Court of Civil Appeals, and accused, on appeal from his conviction, may take advantage of the decision invalidating the election.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3192; Dec. Dig. § 1181. ]
Appeal from Potter County Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
Dutch. Henry was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed, on rehearing.
Cooper & Stanford and Cooper, Merrill & Lumpkin, for appellant C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key Na Series & Rep’r Indeaes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law.
The motion made hy 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, and 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.