Case Name: Rufus Ferguson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-17
Citations: 66 Tex. Crim. 426
Docket Number: No. 1715
Parties: Rufus Ferguson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 426–428

Head Matter:
Rufus Ferguson v. The State.
No. 1715.
Decided April 17, 1912.
Rehearing Granted May 8, 1912.
• 1.—Local Option—Recognizance—Reinstatement.
Where the recognizance did not state the punishment assessed, the same was insufficient. However, a new recognizance conditioned as the law requires having been filed, the appeal was reinstated.
2.—Same—Indictment—Date of Election.
Where appellant filed a plea to the insufficiency of the indictment in the Appellate Court, contending that the same did not allege the date when prohibition was adopted in the county of the prosecution, the same came too late.
3. —Same—Law in Force.
Proof must be made that the local option law had been adopted in the county of the prosecution. Otherwise, a conviction can not be sustained.
4. —Same—Newly Discovered Evidence.
Where the alleged newly discovered evidence was material and had not come to the knowledge of the defendant before trial, a motion for new trial should have been granted.
Appeal from the County Court of Madison. Tried below before the Hon. Tom D. Clark.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
J. M. Brownlee and Carl T. Harper, for appellant.
On the question of the insufficiency of the indictment: Head v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 112, 141 S. W. Rep., 536.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
The Assistant Attorney-General has moved to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance is not in compliance with article 919 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recognizance does not state the punishment assessed, and the motion is sustained. May v. The State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196; Johnson v. The State, 49 S. W. Rep., 594; Martin v. The State, 89 S. W. Rep., 642.
Appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.