
    IKARD v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 8, 1911.
    On Motion for Rehearing, March 8, 1911.)
    1. Cbiminal Law (§ 1076*) — Appeal — Proceedings to Transfer Cause — Recognizance. '
    Where a recognizance on appeal in a criminal case does not recite that the appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor state the amount of the punishment imposed by tbe verdict, as required by statute, it is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the appeal will be dismissed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716; Dee. Dig. § 1076.*]
    
      On Motion; for Rehearing.
    
      2¡ Ceiminal Eaw (§ 1131*) — Appeal—Dismissal — Reinstatement.
    Where an appeal in a criminal, case is dismissed because of insufficient recognizance, the application of appellant for reinstatement, accompanied by a recognizance in manner and form as required by law, will be granted.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Crimina Law, Cent. Dig. § 2985; Dec. Dig. § 1131.*]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1102*) — Appeal—Record —Statement of Pacts — Effect of Failure to Pile in Time..
    Where the statement of facts incorporated in a record on appeal is not filed within the time allowed- by Acts 30th Leg. (1st Called Sess.) c. 7, the statement will be stricken out on motion.
    [Ed. Note.^For other cases, see Criminal Law. Dec. Dig. § 1102.*]
    4. Criminal Law (§ 1092*) — Appeal—Record —Bill of Exceptions.
    Where 'the bills of exceptions are not verified by the signature of the trial judge and do not bear any file marks, they cannot be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2834-2861; Dee. Dig. § 1092.*]
    5. Criminal Law (§ 1094*) — Appeal — Af-firmance.
    Where.there is neither a statement of facts nor bills of exceptions in the record .on appeal, which can be considered, and the information charges a violation of the law, the judg-. ment will be affirmed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2807, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1094.*]
    Appeal from Potter County Court; W. M. Jeter, Judge.
    Frank Ikard was convicted of crime, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. H. Cooper, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the recognizance is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court, in that the same does not recite that the appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor does it state the amount of the punishment imposed by the verdict of the jury, as required by the statute. An inspection of the recognizance shows that it is defective in this respect.

Therefore the motion is sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.-

At a former day of this term of court this case was dismissed because of insufficient recognizance. Appellant has filed hi's application, praying that this cause be reinstated, and. tenders a recognizance in manner and form as required by law, and the order heretofore dismissing this cause is set aside.

The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to strike out. the statement of facts incorporated in the record. This , being an appeal from, the county court, and tie statement of facts -not having been filed within the time allowed by law, the motion is sustained. See chapter 7 of the Acts of 30th Legislature, p. 446.

The bills of exception in the record are not verified by the signature of the trial judge, and do not bear any file marks. Consequently they cannot be considered.

There being neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception in the record, which we can consider, and the information charging ' a .violation of the law, the judgment is affirmed.  