Case Name: T. L. Tolar v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-03-26
Citations: 97 Tex. Crim. 145
Docket Number: No. 8185
Parties: T. L. Tolar v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 145–148

Head Matter:
T. L. Tolar v. The State.
No. 8185.
Decided March 26, 1924.
Rehearing denied April 16, 1924.
1. —Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Appeal Bond.
Where the appeal bond was not properly approved by the trial judge the same is insufficient. However, it appearing that the defect had been corrected, the case will be heard upon its merits.
2. —Same—Liquor Law — Manufacture.
Under proper allegations under the present liquor law one may be charged with an offense for making almost any character of liquor or mixture which is intoxicating, or which contains more than 1% of alcohol, and where the indictment alleged that defendant manufactured spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors, capable of producing intoxication, the same is sufficient.
3. —Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence — Descriptive Allegations.
The State being bound by the descriptive allegations in the indictment as to the particular kind of liquor accused was charged with manufacturing, and the evidence, failed to meet them, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Appeal from the District Court of Potter. Tried below before the Hon. Henry S. Bishop.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
J. W. Culwell, for appellant.
Cited: Hardaway v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 485; Young v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 402; Helton v. State, 94 id., 359.
Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor with punishment of one year in the penitentiary.
Appellant seeks enlargement from custody pending appeal upon a bond purported to have been executed in conformity to Article 904 or our C. C. P. The bond is approved by the sheriff only. It fails to also have the approval of the trial judge. In this respect it is defective, and no jurisdiction was conferred upon this court by-reason thereof. See Article 904 C. C. P., Chumley v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 54, 201 S. W., 176; King v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 304, 203 S. W., 52; Johnson v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 376, 203 S. W., 903; Gray v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 1, 224 S. W., 513.
For the defect in the bond heretofore pointed out this appeal must be dismissed.
Dismissed.