Case Name: TOLAR v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-03-26
Citations: 260 S.W. 1043
Docket Number: No. 8185
Parties: TOLAR v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 1043–1044

Head Matter:
TOLAR v. STATE.
(No. 8185.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 26, 1924.
On the Merits. April 16, 1924.)
1. Bail &wkey;>70 — Appeal bond not approved by judge confers no jurisdiction.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 904, an appeal bond approved only by sheriff and not by the judge is defective, and confers no jurisdiction on the appellate-court.
2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236( 13) — Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction for manufacture of “spirituous” or “malt” liquors.
Evidence of the finding in defendant’s possession of still and mash, the liquor from which two witnesses testified would be intoxicating if drunk in sufficient quantity, held- insufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful manufacture, under Acts Eirst Called Sess. 87th Leg. (1921) c. 61, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 58S%); such liquid being neither “spiritous,” “vinous,” or “malt" liquor, within the statute.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Eirst and Second Series, Malt Liquor; Spirituous Liquors.]
(&wkey;>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
T. L. Tolar was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed, and subsequently reinstated, and judgment of conviction reversed, and cause remanded.
J. W. Culwell, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
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 of 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 Tex. Cr. R. 54, 201 S. W. 176; King v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 203 S. W. 52; Johnson v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 203 S. W. 903; Gray v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 224 S. W. 513.
For the defect in the bond heretofore pointed out, this appeal must be dismissed.