Case Name: Reagan Harden v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-08
Citations: 62 Tex. Crim. 84
Docket Number: No. 936
Parties: Reagan Harden v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 84–87

Head Matter:
Reagan Harden v. The State.
No. 936.
Decided February 8, 1911.
Rehearing Granted April 19, 1911.
1.—Keeping Disorderly House—Information—Complaint.
Where the complaint charged one offense and the information another distinct offense, the prosecution must be dismissed, but where upon rehearing it was shown that the clerk had made a mistake in copying the information, and that there was a proper information filed in the case, the appeal will be reinstated.
2. —Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of keeping a disorderly house by reason of the fact that intoxicating liquors were sold therein, the evidence showed that the defendant was not connected in any way with the sale of intoxicating liquors as alleged, the conviction cannot be sustained.
3. —Same—Recognizance.
Where the recognizance failed to recite the amount of the fine or punishment assessed against the appellant, and failed to conclude with the words “in this case” the same was insufficient. .However a proper recognizance was filed and the case reinstated.
Appeal from the County Court of Potter. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Jeter.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping a disorderly house; penalty, a fine of $200 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Reeder & Graham, for appellant.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney-General to dismiss this appeal because the recognizance contained in the record does not comply with the Acts of the Twenty-fifth Legislature, 1897, and the prescribed form as found in article 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The recognizance in this particular case fails to recite the amount .of the fine or punishment assessed against appellant, and it also fails to conclude with the words "in this case" as is prescribed in said form. The motion is well taken. Walker v. State, 56 S. W. Rep., 913; McDade v. State, 56 S. W. Rep., 916; Adams v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 534.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.