Case Name: Ed Nugent v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-03-16
Citations: 89 Tex. Crim. 168
Docket Number: No. 6171
Parties: Ed Nugent v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 168–171

Head Matter:
Ed Nugent v. The State.
No. 6171.
Decided March 16, 1921.
Rehearing Granted April 13, 1921.
1. —Recognizance—Name of Offense—Practice on Appeal.
Where the recognizance recited that the defendant stood charged with the offense by conversion, etc., the same was an insufficient description of the offense, and the appeal must be dismissed; however, where a sufficient recognizance was entered into thereafter, the appeal is re-instated.
2. —Same—Indictment—Bailment—Agent—Husband and Wife.
Where the indictment failed to allege that the party alleged was acting as the agent of the owner of the alleged hogs, or that she was authorized by him to make the contract of bailment with the defendant, the same was insufficient, under Article 1348, Vernon’s Penal Code, and it could not be infered as a matter of law that because she is the wife of the owner of the property that she was authorized to act as agent with reference to said property. Following McCarty v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 510, and other cases.
3. —Same—Husband and Wife—Ownership—Bailment.
If the husband had gone away, leaving his wife in the exclusive control, care, and management of the alleged hog, ownership could be alleged in her.
Appeal from the District Court of Walker. Tried below before the Honorable J. A. Platt.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of a hog by conversion; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
M. e. Gates and Jos. B. Henson, for appellant.
—Cited cases in opinion.
C. M. Ctireton, Attorney General, and C. B. Stone, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS Judge.
The appellant was charged with theft by conversion of one hog, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The State, through the Assistant Attorney General, files a motion dismiss the appeal in this case because the recognizance as it appears in the record does not describe any offense by name known to the Code of this State, and does not set forth the constituent elements of any offense known to the law. An examination of the recognizance discloses that the motion is well taken. The recognizance recites, after the formal part, that, "Ed Nugent, who stands charged in this court with the offense by conversion and who had been convicted of such offense," etc.
The recognizance being totally insufficient under Article 903, Vernon's C. C. P., to confer any reviewing rights upon this court, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
Dismissed.