*1 505 v. State. The Reed 1924] further made were representations that any show record fails to The its that request the and check of the delivery the by than implied fairly would be inference the From this delayed. be presentation to with bank the arrangements make would appellant that deducible being There upon. agreed time of presentation check at the the pay sup- fact, be conviction cannot the existing anof misrepresentation no C., 1422, swin- defining Art. P. the of any provisions under of ported 4, of obtaining property which the under it be subdivision dling, unless be- reason to and without a without funds the of check giving upon course of ordinary in the presented it when paid lieve that would be case, in the present The facts of swindling. as business is denounced that subdivision the of purview not it within our do judgment, bring evidence, uncontroverted the that under the of the statute for reason funds there were that implied representation there was no or express that the check would be paid the assurance arrangements giving or In judgment in business. the ordinary the course of upon presentation court, not show commission of the offense of this the evidence does the Stat., 1, 917; Pruitt v. Vol. charged. p. Vernon’s Tex. Crim. See State, 148; State, Rep. 83 Moore v. 87 Texas Crim. Rep. Texas Crim. 77.
The is reversed and the cause remanded. judgment
Reversed and remanded. v. Reed The State. Jesse 26, No. 8521. Delivered November 1924.
Rehearing 17, December 1924. denied Intoxicating liquor Recognizance—Must Offense. 1.—Sale of Describe — recognizance that in record it states is defective. As contained the The violating prohibition appellant charged law. with the offense of the stands penal 903, any by Art. C. C. our code. This does not name offense denounced e d . appeal is therefore dismiss P. The REHEARING.
ON MOTION FOR Appeal —Same—Recognizance—New Bond. 2. properly bond, upon filing appeal of a on account of defective Dismissed bond, appeal cause affirmed. and the is reinstated the authenticated
drawn and before Tried below County. of District Court from the Reon Appeal Judge. Hooper, Carl T. the Hon. liquor, penalty intoxicating the sale of for from a conviction Appeal in the penitentiary. two years Reports. [December,
506 Criminal 98 Texas No brief filed by appellant. Garrard, Morris,
Tom and Grover C. Attorney, State’s Assistant *2 Attorney, for the State’s State. Presiding MORROW, of Judge. offense is the unlawful sale —The in
intoxicating liquor; punishment penitentiary fixed at confinement the for a of period two years. record, it states
The defective. contained in the recognizance is As the that the the of appellant charged violating “stands with offense law.” name in our prohibition any This does not offense denounced Legislature Penal Code. The form demanded recognizance of the by that the the offense which expressly recognizance state of requires 903, the accused has been The At- convicted. Art. C. P. C. State’s a at torney insists dismissal of the The upon appeal. being appellant a large, essential in proper recognizance give is order to court this State, 228; jurisdiction. McKey v. 87 See Texas Crim. Rep. Single- State, 302; State, ton v. 87 Rep. Texas Crim. Goss v. 83 Crim. Texas 349; State, 192; State, Rep. Godby v. 227 Rep. W. Westbrook S. v. 227 Rep.W. 1104. S.
The is dismissed. appeal appeal.
on motion To reinstate Presiding MORROW, Judge. witness named in the indict- —The ment as the purchaser definite and direct gave supporting testimony the in averment the indictment. The sale was denied the by appellant.
A recital of the unnecessary. evidence is deemed The verdict of the settled the jury conflict in favor the of State.
There are no bills of exception of the The complaining procedure. appeal was dismissed on the former occasion because an insufficient of recognizance. Attached to the motion to reinstate is an bond appeal drawn properly and authenticated. appeal The is reinstated. error, The record no presenting judgment the of trial court the is affirmed.
Affirmed. Dunson, Blind v. alias The State. Joe Joe 10,
No. 8530. Delivered December 1924. rehearing
No motion for filed. Intoxicating Liquor Evidence—Inducing 1.—Sale of Sale—Detective. — county employed hy attorney vio- and sheriff to detect One who is the accomplice, liquor law, can be sus- lations of the is an and a conviction not