Case Name: Jasper Black v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-11-13
Citations: 68 Tex. Crim. 151
Docket Number: No. 2041
Parties: Jasper Black v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 151–154

Head Matter:
Jasper Black v. The State.
No. 2041.
Decided November 13, 1912.
Rehearing granted December 4, 1912.
1. —Occupation—Selling Intoxicating Liquors — Appeal Bond.
Where the appeal was dismissed on account of a defective appeal bond, and it was thereafter shown that a proper appeal bond was filed but inadvertently omitted from the transcript, the appeal is reinstated.
2. —Same—Evidence—Leading Question — Bill of Exceptions.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of pusuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, dt appeared from the record that the questions were not leading and answers were germane and admissible, there was no reversible error; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective.
3. —Same—Evidence—Sale—Exchange.
Where defendant let prosecutor have two quarts of whisky to be repaid in whisky, the same constituted a sale in law, and the testimony with reference thereto was admissible: besides, the bill of exceptions was defective.
4. —Same—Evidence—Other Trar sa ctions.
Where, upon trial of pursuing t,-e occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, testimony with reference to other transactions was admitted and properly limited by the court’s charge, there was no error; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective.
5. —Same—Evidence—Moral Turpitude — Felony.
Upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, there was no error in permitting the State, on cross-examination of defendant, to show that he had been arrested upon the charge of burglary.
6. —Same—Evidence—Other Transactions — Occupation.
Upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, there was no error to admit testimony that defendant had access to a quantity of whisky at the time he was alleged to have made the sale and pursued the occupation charged; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective.
7. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, the evidence supported the conviction, there was no error.
Appeal from the District Court of Panola. Tried below before the Hon. W. C. Buford.
Appeal from a conviction of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local ojition territory; penalty, two .years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Brooke & Woolworth, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
— Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
The appellant after conviction attempted to appeal his case by filing an appeal bond. The bond copied in the record is not drawn in accordance with the law. It does not recite that appellant has been convicted of any offense, does not disclose the punishment assessed, and does not bind the appellant "to abide the judgment of this court" in this ease. Neither has it been approved by the judge trying the case, and in no sense is it in compliance with articles 903 and 904 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Eor these reasons the cause must be dismissed.
Dismissed.