
    REED v. STATE.
    (No. 8521.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 26, 1924.
    Appeal Reinstated Dee. 17, 1924.)
    1. Bail <@=566 — Recognizance defective, in not properly designating offense of which convicted.
    Recognizance of one convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor held not to state, the offense of which he was convicted, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903, and so to be defective; it stating merely that he stands charged with the offense of “violating the Prohibition Law.” '
    2. Criminal law <@=>1131 (4) — Appeal dismissed for defective recognizance.
    Appellant being at large, a proper recognizance is essential to give the Court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction, so that, recognizance being defective, appeal will be dismissed.
    On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
    3. Criminal law <@=>1159(3) — Verdict on conflicting evidence settles the conflict.
    Verdict of guilty on conflicting evidence settles the conflict.
    4. Criminal law <©=>1131 (7) — Appeal dismissed for defective recognizance reinstated, on presentment of proper recognizance.
    Appeal dismissed for defective recognizance reinstated; there being attached to motion therefor appeal bond properly drawn and authenticated.
    Appeal from District Court, Leon County; Carl T. Harper, Judge.
    Jesse Reed was convicted of unlawful sale of liquor, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom ;Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The recognizance is defective. As contained in the record, it states that the ap-. pellant ‘.‘stands charged' with the offense of violating the Prohibition Law.”' This does. not name any offense denounced in our Penal Code. The form of recognizance 'demanded by the Legislature expressly requires that' the recognizance state the offense of which the accused has been convicted. Article 903, C. C. P. The state’s attorney insists upon a dismissal of the appeal. The appellant being at large, a proper recognizance is essential, in order to give this. court jurisdiction. See McKey v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 220 S. W. 549; Singleton v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 221 S. W. 610; Goss v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 202 S. W. 956; Godby v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 360, 227 S. W. 192; Westbrook v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 466, 227 S. W. 1104.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

The witness named in the indictment as the purchaser gave definite and direct testimony supporting' the averment in the indictment. The sale was denied by the appellant.

A recital of the evidence is deemed unnecessary. The verdict of the jury settled the conflict in favor of the state.

There are no bills of exception complaining of the procedure. The appeal was dismissed on the former occasion, because of an insufficient recognizance. Attached to the motion to reinstate is an appeal bond properly drawn and authenticated. The appeal is reinstated.

The record presenting no error, the judgment. of the trial court is affirmed.  