
    HUGHES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 7, 1912.
    On Motion for Rehearing, April 10, 1912.)
    1. Bail (§ 66) — Criminal Prosecutions— Appeal — Sufficiency.
    A recognizance, which merely stated that the offense charged was running a horse race bn a public road, did not sufficiently describe the statutory ingredients of the offense.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 279-283; Dec. Dig. § 66.]
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Bail (§ 65) — Appeal — Description of Punishment.
    A recognizance, in a prosecution for horse racing on a public road, was fatally defective for not setting out the punishment imposed, as required by statute.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 996) — Record—Correction.
    The minutes óf the county court recording the recognizance in a criminal case should not be erased and interlined after adjournment for the term, so as to show by insertion the punishment imposed upon accused.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1483, 2529, 2544-2546 ; Dec. Dig. § 996.]
    Appeal from Shelby County Court; E. W. Hooker, Judge.
    Calvin Hughes was convicted of horse racing in a public road, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    E. B. Wheeler and T. Hadden Postell, both of Center, 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
    
   -DAVIDSON, P. J.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance. The recognizance in this case is in the same form as that in Ballard v. State, 138 S. W. 120, dismissed at the present term.

The offense set out in the recognizance is running a horse race on a public road. This is not a sufficient description of the ingredients set out in the statute to constitute the offense therein declared, nor does the recognizance comply with the form prescribed by the Legislature. The Assistant Attorney General’s motion is well taken and will be sustained.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

At a former day of the term the appeal herein was dismissed for want of sufficient recognizance. The recognizance sent up in the original transcript, omitting prior portions of it, reads as follows: “Conditioned that the said Calvin Hughes, who stands charged in this court with the offense of horse racing on public road, and who has been convicted of said offense in this court, shall appear before this court from day to day and from term to term,” etc. It will be noticed that it was fatally defective, in that, among other things, it did not set out the punishment as required by statute. Motion for rehearing is based on the statement that the recognizance was erroneously transcribed in the transcript originally, and sends up what purports to be a correct recognizance. The state replies to this that the recognizance originally sent up was correctly transcribed, and that, after the adjournment of the term of court at which the conviction occurred and during which the recognizance was entered, the minutes of the court recording the recognizance were erased, interlined, and changed, so as to insert the following: “Has been convicted in this cause of a misdemeanor, and his punishment assessed at twenty-five dollars, as more fully appears by the judgment of conviction duly entered in this cause.”

The county clerk and county attorney make affidavit that such alteration has been made as shown by the record, and made after the adjournment of court at which the conviction occurred. Under this state of the record, this court will not reinstate the case nor grant the rehearing. We do not understand how a matter of this sort should be permitted to occur in a trial court in regard to its minutes and records.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.  