Case Name: POPE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-12-20
Citations: 143 S.W. 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: POPE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 143
Pages: 611–614

Head Matter:
POPE v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 20, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 24, 1912.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1076 ) — Appeal—Failure to Pile Appeal Bond — Dismissal.
An appeal from a criminal prosecution will be dismissed where no sufficient recognizance or appeal bond is filed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716; Dec. Dig. § 1076. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Witnesses (§ 372 ) — Impeachment —III Feeling.
In a prosecution for carrying knucks, the accused could show on cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, to establish bias, that a few days before the fight in which the knucks were discovered such witness had provoked a fight with the accused, and was worsted, that he had told another person that, if the accused did not rebate a certain note, he would report him for carrying knucks, and that the defendant had refused to rebate such note.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1192-1199; Dec. Dig. § 372. ]
3. Witnesses (§ 372 ) — Impeachment —III Feeling.
Even where a witness in a criminal prosecution admits his bias, the extent of it may be shown on cross-examination.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Dec. Dig. § 372. ]
4. Witnesses (§ 372 ) — Impeachment — III Feeling.
Where, in a criminal, prosecution, it is sought to impeach a state’s witness by showing bias, great latitude is permissible in the cross-examination, and motives which operate on the mind of a witness when he testifies are never regarded as immaterial or collateral.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1192-1199; Dec. Dig. § 372. ]
5. Witnesses (§ 372 ) — Impeachment—Animus.
Accused on cross-examination of a state’s witness C. to show animus was entitled to show that just before the fight in which the knueks he was accused of carrying were seen the accused had a conversation with O., who asked him if he had paid his fine for a previous fight, and told him as he started to move away that he need not hurry, that the person whom the fight was with was satisfied, and he need expect no further trouble from him, in connection with evidence that the prosecuting witness almost immediately afterward asked the same question, and attacked accused from behind and that O. interfered to prevent the separation of the parties to the fight.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Dec. Dig. § 372. ]
6. Weapons (§ 17 ) — Carrying Concealed Weapons — Evidence.
Where, in a prosecution for carrying knueks, the defense was that accused did not have the knueks, but that in the fight in which they were seen they were on his breast and rolled off when he arose, evidence that the wounds inflicted upon the accused in the fight in question were such as could not have been inflicted with a bare hand or fist, but must have been produced by some hard substance, would tend to show that the defendant did not have the knueks and is material.
[Ed. .Note. — Por other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. § 27; Dec. Dig. § 17. ]
Appeal from Eastland County Court; E. A. Hill, Judge.
Jim Pope was convicted of carrying knuckles, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
J. R. Stubblefield, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAYIDSON, P. J.
This appeal must be dismissed for want of a sufficient recognizance. There is what purports to be a recognizance or appeal bond, which is totally insufficient.
Por want of a sufficient recognizance the appeal is dismissed.