Case Name: Joe PAETZOLD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-11-25
Citations: 277 S.W. 1118
Docket Number: No. 9506
Parties: Joe PAETZOLD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 277
Pages: 1118–1119

Head Matter:
Joe PAETZOLD v. STATE.
(No. 9506.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 25, 1925.)
Umphres, Mood & Clayton, of Amarillo, for appellant. Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, fo'r the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at - confinement in the penitentiary for one year. The state has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on account of an insufficient recognizance.' Appellant's counsel concedes that the motion is good. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, it may be reinstated within 15 days by the filing of a new recogni zance or appeal tonel in accord with title 10, C. C. P. of 1925.