Case Name: P. Robert v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-01-26
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 133
Docket Number: No. 5970
Parties: P. Robert v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 133–136

Head Matter:
P. Robert v. The State.
No. 5970.
Decided January 26, 1921.
Rehearing Granted April 27, 1921.
Rehearing Denied October 5, 1921.
1. — Intoxicating Liquors — Recognizance—Practice on Appeal.
There is no such offense, eo nomine-, as violation of liquor law, and where the recognizance does not set out whether the conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor, the same is insufficient. However, the defect having Seen remedied, the cause is decided on its merits.
2. — Same—Statutes Construed — Intoxicating Liquors.
The court does not discuss the various matters raised by appellant involving the validity of what is known as the Dean Act, Second Called Session, thirty-sixth Legislature, as the same is disposed of in Ex Parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Crim. Rep. 529.
3. — Same—Charge of Court — Burden of Proof — Legislative Exceptions.
Where, upon trial of violation of the so-called Dean Act, the court instructed the jury that the State is not required to prove in the first instance that the manufacture of vinous liquor capable of producing intoxication, or the possession of any equipment for making such vinous liquor, or whisky, was not for either medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes; but when the evidence showed that the defendant manufactured such liquor, or did possess equipment for making such vinous liquor, or whisky, then the burden is on the defendant to show that such manufacture, or possession, was for either mechanical, medicinal, scientific, or sacramental purposes, there was no reversible error. Following State v. Duke, 42 Texas, 455, and other cases.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Robinson.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquors; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Harry C. Gerlach, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, and R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, and B. T. Branch, District Attorney, for the State.
Cited cases in opinion.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
In this case the State moves to-dismiss the appeal because of a defective recognizance. Said recognizance is as follows: "This day came into open Court, P. Robert, defendant, in the above entitled cause, who, together with Frank Bonno, Joe Navarro, and J. G. Trapolino, his sureties, and acknowledge themselves indebted to the State of Texas, in the penaul sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars, conditioned that the said P. Robert, who stands charged in this Court with the offense of violation of the Liquor Law, and who has been convicted of said offense in this Court, shall appear before this Court from day to day and from term to term of the same, and not depart without leave of this Court, in order to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas, at Austin, in this case." It will be observed that this recognizance does not state that the Appellant had been charged with, or convicted of any offense known to our law. We have no such offense eo nomine as "violation of liquor law," nor does said recognizance set out whether said charge and conviction was for a felony or a • misdemeanor. Same is insufficient under our statutes and all the authorities. Articles 903 C. C. P.; Willoughby v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 40, 219 S. W. Rep., 468; McKey v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 228, 220 S. W. Rep., 549.
The motion is sustained and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.'