
    DURST v. STATE.
    (No. 5410.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 11, 1919.
    On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 8, 1919.)
    1. Bail <&wkey;65 — Recognizance not stating PUNISHMENT FATALLY DEFECTIVE.
    Where recognizance on appeal in a criminal case does not set out the amount of punishment assessed, as required by statute, the appeal will be dismissed.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;93 — Criminal district
    COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PROSECUTIONS.FOR SIMPLE ASSAULT.
    Criminal district court for Bowie county, having jurisdiction to try all misdemeanors of which the county court previous to creation of criminal district court had exclusive original jurisdiction, had no jurisdiction over prosecution for simple assault; county court’s jurisdiction to try simple assault cases having been concurrent with the justice court.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
    Lee Durst was convicted of assault and battery, and he- appeals.
    Reversed, and cause dismissed.
    O. B. Pirkey, of New Boston, for appellant.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

This conviction was for assault and battery.

The appeal must be dismissed for want of a sufficient recognizance. The statute requires the recognizance must se’t out in the face of it the amount of punishment assessed against appellant. This recognizance fails to do this.

The appeal, therefore; will be dismissed.

On Motion for liehearing.

The appeal herein was dismissed for want of matters showing that the jurisdiction of this court had attached. These matters have been cured. The case will be reinstated and disposed of upon the question suggested for revision. .

Appellant, was informed against in the county court for simple assault. Pending prosecution in that cpúrt, the Legislature at its fourth called session created a criminal district court for Bowie county, ousting the county court of jurisdiction as a trial court, and conferring, upon the criminal district court original jurisdiction to try all misdemeanors in which the. county court had ex-eltfsive original jurisdiction. This being a simple assault, the county court did not have such jurisdiction. Its authority to try a simple assault was only concurrent with the justice court. As the Legislature limited the jurisdiction of the criminal district court to misdemeanors in which the county court had original exclusive jurisdiction, this case did not fall within that category, and therefore the criminal district court did not have authority to try it. Just how the case got into the criminal. district court is a matter of speculation. There is no order of transfer from the county court to the criminal district court; but this, under the view we take of the case, will be immaterial, as the criminal district court could not entertain jurisdiction to try it, whether there was an order of transfer or not, the Legislature having limited its authority to that class of misdemeanors in which the county court had exclusive original jurisdiction.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause dismissed^ • 
      igssFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     