
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 7114.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 18, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law <§=>! 104(2)— Caption of transcript should state date of adjournment of term.
    The caption of a transcript on appeal should show the date of adjournment of the term at which conviction was had.
    2. Bail <§=364 — Appeal bond must be in statutory form.
    An appeal bond, which does not comply as to conditions with the form prescribed by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 919, will not support an appeal.
    3. Bail <§=>70 — Appeal bond In misdemeanor cases must be approved by judge or sheriff.
    An appeal bond in a misdemeanor case that did not comply with Acts 1919, c. 18, § 1 (Yernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. .Supp. 1922, art. 918),- in that it was approved by the clerk, when it should have been approved by either the sheriff or judge, will not support an appeal.
    4. Criminal law <§=>1020 — No appeal in misdemeanor cases to Court of Criminal Appeals where fine only $20.
    • Where a prosecution for drunkenness originated in a corporation court, and was appealed to the county court, and the fine assessed was only $20, by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 86, 87, no appeal lies to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    Appeal from Ochiltree County Court; J. M. Grigsby, Judge.
    R. L. Smith was convicted of drunkenness in a public place, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for drunkenness in a public place.

Our Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. He calls attention to the fact that the caption to the transcript fails to show the date of adjournment of the term of court at which the conviction was had. Under the authority of Mandosa v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 225 S. W. 169, Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 225 S. W. 532, and Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 237 S. W. 920, this should appear. The reasons are apparent from the cases cited.

We would also call attention to the appeal bond. It does not comply as to conditions with the form of recognizance prescribed by article 919, C. O. P. The conditions should be the same whether the obligation be a bond or recognizance. It does not comply with Acts of legislature, 1919, c. 18, § 1 (article 918, Vemon’s Ann. Code, Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922), in that the bond was approved by the clerk, whereas in misdemeanor cases the appeal bond must be approved by either the sheriff or the judge. Sweak v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239 S. W. 615; Sheridan v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 477.

If we understand the record before us the prosecution originated in the corporation court, and was appealed to the county court, where the fine assessed was only .$20. If such is the history of the case, no appeal would lie to this court. Articles 86, 87, O. C. P.

The appeal must be dismissed. 
      ®=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     