Case Name: MERFETT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 135 S.W. 573
Docket Number: 
Parties: MERFETT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 573–573

Head Matter:
MERFETT v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1911.
On Rehearing, March 15, 1911.)
Bail (§ 65 ) — Sufficiency — Misdemeanor Case — Stating Punishment — Dismissal oe Appeal.
Motion to dismiss the appeal in a misdemeanor case is well taken; the recognizance not containing the statement, necessary under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, arts. 886-888. to allow the appellate court to take jurisdiction, of the amount of the punishment inflicted.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent.' Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
Appeal from Potter County Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
E. S. Merfett appeals from a conviction.
Reversed and dismissed.
H. H. Cooper, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
This is a misdemeanor case. The defendant was charged and convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in Potter county,. Tex., after an election had been held by the qualified voters of said county in accordance with law to determine whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited in said county, and such election had resulted in favor of prohibition, and the commissioners' court had duly made, passed, and entered its order declaring the result of such election, and absolutely prohibited such sales; and his punishment was assessed at a fine of ?100 and 60 days in jail.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, among others, on the ground that the recognizance does not state the amount of the punishment inflicted in the trial court. The motion is well taken. Articles 886, 887, and 888, Code Cr. Proc. 1895; Clark v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 56 S. W. 623; Walker v. State, 56 S. W. 913; McDade v. State, 56 S. W. 916; Beck v. State, 56 S. W. 917. Many other cases to the same effect might be cited, but we deem it unnecessary.
The motion is granted, and the appeal dismissed.