Case Name: B. W. Goodwin v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-15
Citations: 63 Tex. Crim. 140
Docket Number: No. 962
Parties: B. W. Goodwin v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 140–143

Head Matter:
B. W. Goodwin v. The State.
No. 962.
Decided February 15, 1911.
Rehearing Denied June 26, 1911.
1. —Speeding Automobile—Recognizance.
Where the recognizance did not state the punishment assessed against the appellant the same was insufficient. However, a sufficient recognizance being filed tlierafter, the case will be heard on its merits.
2. —Same—Indictment.
Where, upon trial of speeding an automobile, the indictment followed the statute, the same was sufficient.
3. —Same—Wilfully—Duress.
Where, upon trial of running an automobile at a greater rate of speed than allowed by law, the evidence showed that the defendant was driving the car under the control of another, this was no defense, in not being shown that he was under duress, nor was it a defense that he did not do so wilfully.
4. —Same—Charge of Court—Misdemeanor.
Where no charge was requested in a misdemeanor case, the matter can not be reviewed on appeal.
5. —Same—Public Road—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of speeding an automobile on a public road, there was evidence authorizing the jury to find that the road was a public road, and yo charge being requested on this phase of the case, there was no error,
Appeal from the County Court of Jefferson. Tried below before the Hon. B. W. Wilson.
Appeal from a conviction of speeding an automobile penalty, a fine of $50.
The State’s testimony showed that the prosecuting witness and others had started out hunting and heard an automobile coming behind them and stopped at the side of the road; that the defendant was driving the automobile at the rate of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour and, as he passed the hunting party, killed a valuable dog; that this was about seven o’clock in the evening, about dark, in the country; that they had no way of measuring the speed except by estimate; that there was another party in the car defendant was driving; that the prosecutor and party remained in this place in the woods and when defendant returned alone they stopped him and took him out and gave him a whipping, and that the defendant then ran off in the woods leaving his machine in the road; that since the occurrence the party riding in the car with the defendant had paid prosecutor $50 for the dog; that the road was used for public travel.
The defendant’s testimony was both by the passenger and himself that the machine was not going over fifteen miles an hour; that while they had no speedometer they were satisfied that the car was not going beyond this speed. Defendant testified that he was under the control and direction of his passenger in the car.
McDowell & Davidson, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Upon question of sufficiency of indictment: McConnell v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 354; Horan v. State, 24 Texas, 161; State v. Miller, 34 Texas, 535; Williams v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 271.
On the question that the evidence was sufficient to prove a public road: Floyd v. State, 25 Texas, 277; Michel v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 108.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
The appellant in this case was tried and convicted in the County Court of Jefferson County, charged with a misdemeanor.
The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance, in that said recognizance does not state the punishment assessed against the appellant. In May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196, it is held: "The Twenty-Fifth Legislature amended article 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and provided a form for recognizance on appeal in misdemeanor cases. Among other things, said bond is conditioned that 'appellant, who has been convicted in this case of a misdemeanor and his punishment assessed at $-, as more fully appears from the judgment of conviction, shall appear before this court/ etc., and a recognizance that does not state the punishment assessed is insufficient."
In this case the recognizance is defective in that particular, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney-General is sustained, and the appeal in this case is dismissed.
Dismissed.