
    Tony Orlando v. The State.
    No. 21382.
    Delivered January 15, 1941.
    On Motion to Reinstate Appeal February 19, 1941.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      A. E. Heidingsfelder and W. W. Wander, both of Houston, for appellant.
    
      Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The conviction is for a misdemeanor; the punishment, a fine of $25.00.

The recognizance merely shows that appellant has been convicted. It fails to state that the conviction was for a misdemeanor. It being defective in the respect mentioned, this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of violating the plumbing ordinance of the city of Houston, and assessed a fine of $25.00.

As we understand the record, the facts are identical and the same question raised in the case decided by us in Cause No. 21,379, styled Clarence Morrow v. State, (not yet reported). (140 Texas Crim. Rep., 586). For the reasons there stated, we think that error was committed.

The appeal in this cause was originally dismissed because of an error in the recognizance as shown by the record on appeal. By proper certificate the clerk of the court has corrected the error. Accordingly, the motion to reinstate the appeal is granted and the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.  