
    EATON v. STATE.
    (No. 5407.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 11, 1919.
    On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 8, 1919.)
    1. Bail <&wkey;65 — Recognizance failing to STATE PUNISHMENT FATALLY DEFECTIVE.
    Recognizance, on appeal,' which fails to recite the amount of punishment assessed, is fatally defective.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. CRIMINAL LAW <&wkey;93 — CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF PROSECUTION FOR MISDEMEANOR.
    Criminal district court of Bowie county created by the Acts 35th Leg. (1918, 4th Called Sess.) c. 28, has not original jurisdiction of the prosecution of a misdemeanor of which the county court did not have exclusive original jurisdiction prior to the creation of the criminal district court.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
    J. E. Eaton was prosecuted for a misdemeanor. From judgment rendered he appeals.
    Reversed,- and prosecution ordered dismissed.
    
      Todd, Graham & Williams, of Texarkana, for appellant.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

This is a misdemeanor conviction.

The recognizance fails to recite the amount of punishment assessed, and is therefore fatally defective.

The appeal will he dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

At a previous term of the court, the appeal herein' was dismissed for want of necessary matters in ,the record showing that the jurisdiction of this court had attached. These defects have been supplied, and the case will be disposed of on its merits.

There is but one question necessary to be noticed, to wit, want of jurisdiction of the criminal district court of Bowie county to entertain jurisdiction of and try the case, which is a misdemeanor, and not one of those classes of cases of which the county court had exclusive original jurisdiction. By the act of the,Fourth Galled Session of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature (chapter 28),. the criminal district court of Bowie county was created and given original jurisdiction of misdemeanors in which the county court had original exclusive jurisdiction to try. This being a ease in which the county court did not have this exclusive original jurisdiction, did not authorize the criminal district court to try it. It is not an appeal from.the justice court to that court; therefore the criminal district court did not have jurisdiction.

This matter is discussed by Judge Latti-more in the companion case of Eaton v. State (No. 5408) 215 S. W. 100, this day decided. For the reasons there given, the- judgment herein will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. 
      «&wkey;For other cases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     