
    JANUARY, 1925.
    A. C. Barnaby v. The State.
    No. 8595.
    Delivered Jan. 7, 1925.
    Sale of Intoxicating Liquor — Recognizance—Defective—Appeal Dismissed.
    The recognizance is defective in that it states that the appellant “stands charged in this court with the offense of violating the prohibition law.” This does not name any offense denounced in our penal code. The recognizance must state the offense, of which the accused has been convicted. Art. 903, C. C. P. The appellant being at large, a proper recognizance is assential to give this court jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed.
    Appeal from the District Court of Walker County. Tried below before the Hon. Carl T. Harper, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
    
      Gates & Briggs, of Huntsville, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The recognizance, as contained in the record, is defective in that it states that the appellant “stands charged in this court with the offense of violating the prohibition law.” This does not name any offense denounced in our Penal Code. The form of recognizance demanded by the legislature expressly requires that the recognizance state the offense of which the accused has been convicted. See Art. 903, C. C. P.

The State’s Attorney insists upon a dismissal of the appeal. The appellant being at large, a proper recognizance is essential in order to give this court jurisdiction. See McKey v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 228; Singleton v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 302; Goss v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 349; Godby v. State, 227 S. W. Rep., 192; Westbrook v. State, 227 S. W. Rep., 1104; Robert v. State, 228 S. W. Rep., 230.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

After the dismissal of this cause on the 7th of January, 1925, appellant’s request for permission to file an amended recognizance or bond was granted. None having been filed within fifteen days, the mandate showing dismissal will be issued.

Mandate issued.  