Case Name: L. B. Gray v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-02-15
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 484
Docket Number: No. 6684
Parties: L. B. Gray v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 484–486

Head Matter:
L. B. Gray v. The State.
No. 6684.
Decided February 15, 1922.
Rehearing Granted April 12, 1922.
1. —Misdemeanor Theft—Recognizance—Jurisdiction—Words and Phrases.
Where, upon appeal from a misdemeanor theft, the recognizance was incomplete in that it omitted the words “in this case,” it gives this court no jurisdiction of the appeal; however, the defect in the record having been cured, the order dismissing this cause is set aside and the case here is heard upon its merits.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Claim of Right—Separate Property—Husband and Wife—Intent.
Where, upon trial of theft, defendant was charged that he stole a ten dollar bill from a certain boy who lived with his mother and father, and the evidence showed that afterwards the mother claimed the money, which the boy carried to defendant’s store, who had given defendant’s father credit therefor, the court should have submitted the requested charge that if the father of the hoy was indebted to the defendant and the money was the property of the mother and that it was taken and afterwards applied on account they should acquit, as there was no claim that the money was the separate property of the wife; and besides, there was an absence of intent to steal. Following Young v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 467, and other cases.
Appeal from the Comity Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Honorable Guy Rogers.
Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $1; and one-half hour in the county jail.
Davenport & Thornton, for appellant.
The opinion states the ease.
B. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
—The conviction is for misdemeanor theft. The recognizance concludes with these words: ". . . to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas.
It. is incomplete in that it omits the words: "in this ease."
The purpose of the recognizance is that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals will be performed 'in the particular case in which the recognizance is made. In a number of instances, it has been necessary to dismiss the appeal because of the same omission as that apparent in the present instance. Bodkins v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 499; 172 S. W. Rep., 217; Branch's Ann. Texas Penal Code, p. 315, sec. 620.
The motion made by the State to dismiss the appeal must be sustained.
Dismissed.