*1 that the bank’s vault. The reflects the fact bank testimony had no that for her relative interest note and those acting on said to the collection of the and interest due notea principal acted in their After con- individual careful solely capacities. - evidence, sideration of the we are unable to find any proof support note to First ing allegation passed alleged forged Bank & Trust of Cuero. Company reversed and cause remanded. judgment
Reversed and remanded. of the Commission of foregoing Court of Criminal Virgil Moore v. The State. February 20, 1929.
No. 12337. Delivered *2 The states the case. Scott,
Hale, Marshall, Hall and of for Casey Canton, A. A. Dawson of State’s for the Attorney, State. CHRISTIAN, is Judge. offense of possession intoxicating —The sale; for the liquor of the the purpose confinement in punishment for one penitentiary year.
It is in stated the “stands recognizance appellant charged the with offense of and unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor,” that he “has been of convicted the offense of unlawfully possessing is There no such liquor.” offense known our statute. intoxicating Unless the possessed for the of intoxicating liquor purpose sale, his thereof did not offend the laws of possession against Texas. Hence the is in defective recognizance fatally failing show that convicted of offense. the When accused is this court is without enlarged, in jurisdiction the absence aof or State, bond. Rhea proper recognizance appeal 275 S. W. 1021; State, 54; McFadden v. 300 S. Ross v. W.
(2d) The is dismissed. is appeal Appellant fifteen granted days which to his perfect appeal.
Dismissed. of the Commission' foregoing opinion of has the of the Court of Criminal and MARTIN, Judge. Offense, the unlawful of intoxi possession — one cating liquors; year penalty, penitentiary. 20, 1929,
On February this was dismissed because of appeal record. The record now been imperfect perfected, appeal reinstated and case will be on considered its merits. Officers under search warrant found in and near operating residence of private quantity intoxicating liquor. affidavit search for warrant to have been B. purports signed by J. Pace, Henderson and Little and to before sworn W. Hamp J. of the Peace of Harrisdn Little used County, Texas. Justice he, cross-examination, its case and prove on testified: I was in
“I think Mr. this search warrant. Gilstrap I carried it before sheriff’s office when it. Gilstrap in the office Mr. Henderson fills them out of Peace. usually and one takes makes we them the office and copies boys sign 'the then we on with it Pace or Lindsey go before Judge Judge it before Then I it was carried raid. but think Gilstrap, it back and Gil- Pace, I be and brought wouldn’t positive, Judge I, went before and I on and made the raid. never myself, went strap Pace.” by appel- After the had been elicited on cross-examination above lant, searching to withdraw all the testimony he made motion reason, among their search for the the result of officers touching time affiants “did not at others, any appear one of the two because the matters set out there make affidavit to before officer and any *3 presents This motion was overruled said application.” bill of same as error by proper exception. Penal Code mandatorily requires signature
Art. 691 of the issue an a warrant may affidavit before of two credible persons actually In this case one person residence. only search private by oath, presented two are exact point where required. in the case his favor seems to have been decided 553, by opinion 107 Tex. Crim. Rep. Armstrong State, 282 also Foster v. Morrow. See Presiding witness only to show that Little was this bill The Court qualifies who the other party and that Mr. testified to this who and not called affidavit, upon court was present of the invalidity facie made prima showing testify. issue, desired to make if the State search warrant and of the Peace on of the Henderson or it should have placed not devolve upon That did duty the witness stand. remanded. and cause is reversed The judgment and remanded.
Reversed of the Commission of Appeals The foregoing Court of Criminal Appeals approved