Case Name: A. J. Reynolds v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-01-16
Citations: 82 Tex. Crim. 505
Docket Number: No. 4470
Parties: A. J. Reynolds v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 505–512

Head Matter:
A. J. Reynolds v. The State.
No. 4470.
Decided January 16, 1918.
1. —Unlawful Assembly—Recognizance—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception.
Where the appellant filed a new recognizance, the first being fatally defective, and also a corrected copy of the record showing the filing of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions in due time, the appeal will be heard on its merits.
2. —Same—Indictment—Pleading.
Where the indictment for unlawful assembly followed approved precedent and the statute, the same was sufficient,.nor was the same duplicitous.
S.—Same—Information—Precedent—Preventing Motorman from Running Cars.
In a complaint and information charging unlawful assembly with the intent and purpose, by threats and intimidation, to prevent and deprive certain motormen of their right to labor as such, etc., an objection thereto that they failed to allege that the street car was being operated or intended to be operated and run is untenable, and the complaint and information were in approved form. Distinguishing McGehee v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 330, and other cases.
4. —Same—Statutes Construed—Misdemeanor—Felony.
Riot and unlawful assembly are both misdemeanors, and article 1013, subdivision 3, P. C., and article 1024a, Vernon’s Crim. Stats., have no application to the instant case.
5. —Same—Sufficiency of Evidence—Definition of Offense.
Where one of the persons identified with the defendant and another, in the offense of an unlawful assembly, was acquitted prior to the trial of defendant, the latter’s contention that such would acquit him is untenable, and this doctrine is not the law in this State. Following Alonzo v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 378, and otñef cases.
Appeal from the County Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Hon. E. B. MeClintock.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawful assembly; penalty, a fine of two hundred dollars.
The opinion states the case.
M. W. Stanton, Hudspeth, Dale & Harper, and E. C. Gaines, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of information: Bradford v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 632, and cases cited in opinion.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
The conviction herein was for a misdemeanor. The purported original recognizance was fatally defective. (2 Vernon's Ann. Crim. Stats., p. 882.) At his instance this court gave" appellant leave to enter into a new recognizance in the terms required by the statute. Since then he has enterd into another purported recognizance and now files it herein. It likewise is fatally derective. (2 Vernon's Ann. Crim. Stats., p. 884.) As neither recognizance gives this court jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.