
    HAVERBEKKEN et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 4845.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 30, 1918.)
    1. Bail &wkey;36&wkey;Am?EAi>-RECOGNizANCE.
    It is not permissible for defendants when jointly convicted to enter a joint recognizance.
    2. Bail <&wkey;72 — Appeal — Recognizance — Amendment.
    In view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 923, providing for amendment to recognizance on appeal from conviction, two defendants, jointly convicted of affray, have the right to amend their recognizance, which was defective by reason of being joint.
    3. Criminal Law &wkey;>1092(l) — Apfea3>-Bill of Exceptions — Approval.
    In view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 744, requiring a bill of exceptions in criminal eases, bill of exceptions on appeal from a conviction must be approved by the trial judge.
    Appeal from Bosque County Court; W. A. York, Judge.
    Chris and Martin Haverbekken were convicted of affray, and they appeal.
    Dismissed.
    See, also, 194 S. W. 1114.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

Appellants were jointly tried and convicted of affray, and each fined $1.

In appealing they made a joint recognizance. This, it appears, is not permissible under the decisions of this court. Goldman v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 34 S. W. 122; Hogg v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 109, 48 S. W. 580; McMeans v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 130, 38 S. W. 998; Hodges v. State, 38 S. W. 1019; Bowers v. State, 33 S. W. 974; Irvin v. State, 32 S. W. 899. Under article 923 appellants would have the right, if they desired to, to amend their recognizance, in which event we will order reinstatement of the dismissal, which must be ordered. Vernon’s C. C. P. p. 888, and cases cited; Chancey v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 535, 90 S. W. 632; Thomas v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 472, 147 S. W. 578; Cryer v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 37 S. W. 753, 38 S. W. 203.

The state, through its Assistant Attorney General, calls attention to the fact, however, that the bills of exception in the record have not been approved by the trial judge. This, of course, is requisite. C. C. P. art. 744, and cases cited thereunder. He also calls attention to the fact that the statement of facts was filed more than 20 days after adjournment of the term of county court at which the trial took place, and for that reason objects to its consideration, citing O. C. P. art. 844a, and cases cited thereunder in Vernon’s O. C. P.

The appeal will be dismissed, with the permission to enter into a new recognizance if appellant so desires.  