
    Holman and Pierce v. the State.
    Where Holman and Pierce were convicted jointly, and there were in the record two recognizances, one appearing to have boon entered into by Holman in a case entitled “The State of Texas v. Hardy Holman,” the other by Pierce in a case entitled “The State of Texas v. William 0- Pierce,” and the recognizances contained no other matter of description, it was held that there was no apparent connection between the recognizances and the case presented by the record, and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
    Where there is no recognizance on appeal in a criminal case, or where the recognizance is defective, the Supreme Court cannot entertain the appeal by permitting a new recognizance to be given.
    Appeal from Smith. The appellants were jointly tried-and convicted of permitting playing at cards in their house for retailing spirituous liquors. They moved for a new trial, which was overruled. There were in the record two recognizances, one appearing to have been entered into by Holman in a ease entitled “The State of Texas v. Hardy Holman,” the other by Pierce in a •case entitled “The State of Texas v. William C. Pierce.”
    The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal for the want of a recognizance.
    
      Reaves, for appellants.
    
      Attorney General, for appellee.
   Wheeler, J.

In this case there is no apparent connection between the recognizances in the record and the case presented by it. Neither purports oí appears to be a recognizance of the defendants, or either of them, in the case of The State of Texas v. Ilardy Holman and William C. Pierce. If they were intended to bo recognizances in that case they do not describe the case correctly by its style and title, nor in any other manner connect themselves with it, but they purport to be recognizances taken in other and different cases. It is plain, therefore, that the recognizances in the record cannot support this appeal.

We are asked, however, to retain the appeal, for the purpose of enabling the appellants to perfect their recognizances. But this we cannot do, for the reason that tlie law evidently requires the recognizance to bo entered into during the term of the court at which the conviction takes place. It is a condition precedent to the appeal, and it is only in case of its performance that the court is authorized to.suspend the execution of sentence. (Hart. Dig., art. 473; Laturner v. The State, 9 Tex. R.) The recognizance is necessary to give this court jurisdiction, and none appearing to have been given in this case, the appeal must be dismissed in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of Hammond v. The State (8 Tex. R.) and Laturner v. The State* before cited.

Appeal dismissed»  