
    JOSEPH v. STATE.
    (No. 4984.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 10, 1918.
    On Motion for Rehearing, June 5, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied June 28, 1918.)
    1. Bail <S=>66 — Form—Appeal—Dismissal.
    In a misdemeanor case where the recogni-sance fails to name the offense for which conviction was had, as specified in the form shown in Vernon’s Ann. Code Or. Proe. 1916, art. 903, or state the pendlty assessed, the appeal may be dismissed upon motion therefor.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Assault and Battery <©=>100 — Aggravated Assault — Excessive Punishment.
    Where defendant pleaded guilty to an aggravated assault, and the evidence shows he stabbed the person named in the breast with a pocketknife striking a rib, and the record discloses no extenuating circumstances except that defendant is aged, punishment by a $200 fine and 60 days in the county jail as assessed by the jury will not be set aside as excessive.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Williamson County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    W. M. Joseph was convicted of aggravated assault, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. E. Taulbee, of Georgetown, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. A tty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

This is a misdemeanor ■case in which the recognizance fails to name the offense for which the conviction was had, •or state the penalty assessed. The motion to dismiss, filed by the state, is based upon this -defect. This motion, under the decisions of this state, must be sustained. Article 903, C. C. P.; White v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 147,151 S. W. 826; Watson v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 620, 138 S. W. 611.

The appeal is dismissed.

PRENDERGAST, J., absent.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant was indicted for assault with Intent to murder, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed by a jury at a fine of $200 and •confinement in the county jail for 60 days.

There is no complaint of the manner of the trial, but the appeal is based upon the theory that the punishment is excessive. The evidence shows that appellant inflicted a wound upon the injured party named in the indictment by stabbing or cutting with a pocketknife. The evidence is quite meager as to the character of the knife and the character of the wound. It does appear, however, that with a pocketknife he stabbed the party named in the breast near the nipple inflicting a wound about the eighth of an inch in length, striking the sixth rib on the loft side of the body, ranging upward. The record discloses no extenuating circumstances except that the appellant is an aged man, and we fail’to find the record in condition to authorize this court to disturb the verdict.

The order heretofore entered dismissing the appeal is set aside in response to the motion for rehearing, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.  