
    W. S. Magee v. The State.
    Recognizance for an appeal described the offence as “ disturbing a congregation assembled for religious worship.” Held, bad, because the disturbance is not characterized as having been wilfully done, and therefore the recital imports no offence against the law.
    Appeal from the County Court of Rains. Tried below before the Hon. E. P. Kearby, County Judge.
    
      Darden & Martin, for the appellant.
    
      Thomas Ball, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   Winkler, J.

The assistant attorney-general, on behalf of the appellee, moves the court to dismiss the appeal herein, because of an insufficient recognizance. The offence charged against the appellee is wilfully .disturbing a congregation assembled for religious worship, and con'diicting themselves in a lawful manner, by loud and vociferous talking. The offence set out in the recognizance is, “ disturbing a congregation assembled for religious'worship.” The material defect in the recognizance is in not characterizing the disturbance as having been wilfully done. Penal Code, art. 180; Acts 1873, p. 43.

Because the recognizance does not describe the offence as defined by law, or any offence known to the law, the motion of the assistant attorney-general must prevail, and the appeal herein be dismissed. Stancel v. The State, 6 Texas Ct. App. 461. And it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.  