
    BIRD v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 8, 1911.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1076) — Appeal—Recognizance — Sufficiency.
    A recognizance on appeal, which does not name the court in which accused was convicted, nor the punishment imposed, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 887, does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law,. Cent. Dig. §§ 2711-2713; Dec. Dig. § 1076.]
    Appeal from Potter County Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
    Charley Bird was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Reeder & Graham, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Tlie Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that the recognizance is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court, in that the same does not name the court in which appellant was convicted, nor does it state the amount of" the punishment imposed by the verdict of the jury, as required by article 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1895, and decisions of this court construing this article.

An inspection of the recognizance shows that it is defective in this respect, wherefore the motion of the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.  