
    LOCKETT v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 5, 1912.)
    1. Bail (§§ 65, 66*)—Criminal Prosecution —Recognizance—Allegation as to Oe-EENSE AND PUNISHMENT.
    , Under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 91Q, which prescribes a recognizance conditioned that defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor and his punishment assessed, as shown by judgment of conviction, shall abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, a recognizance which does not state that defendant was con victed of a misdemeanor, or contain allegations sufficient to define an offense, or state the punishment assessed, is insufficient.
    [Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 285, 279-283; Dec. Dig. §§ 65, 66.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1020*)—Texas Court oe Criminal Appeals—Jurisdiction.
    Under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 87, the Court Under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, § 87, the Court of Criminal Appeals has no jurisdiction on appeal, in cases originating in the justice court, in which the fine imposed on appeal to the county court is less than $100, exclusive of costs.
    [Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Criminal, Law, Cent.Dig. §§ 2578-2580; Dec.Dig. § 1020.*]
    Appeal from Concho County Court; C. P. Cottrell, Judge.
    Wyatt Lockett was convicted of a misdemeanor, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   I-IARPER, J.

It appears from the record that a complaint was filed in the justice court of precinct No. 3, Concho county, against appellant. He was tried and convicted in the justice court, and appealed to the county court, where he was again tried and convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $1. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled in the county court, to which action of the court appellant excepted, and gave notice of appeal to this court.

Appellant entered into a recognizance, but the recognizance does not state he was convicted of a misdemeanor, and does not contain allegations sufficient to define an offense; neither does it state the punishment assessed. On account of the defect in the recognizance, the Assistant Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion must be sustained. Article 919, Code of Criminal Procedure 1911; Bigelow v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 37 S. W. 330.

However, we might add that, had a sufficient recognizance been entered into, this court would have no jurisdiction in this ease. Article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that this court has no jurisdiction on appeal, in cases originating in the justice court, in which the fine imposed on appeal to the county court is less than $100, exclusive of costs.

The appeal is dismissed.  