
    ORTIZ v. STATE.
    (No. 9226.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 11, 1925.)
    1. Bail <®=o66 — Recognizance bond held defective as not describing offense.
    A recognizance bond, stating that accused was charged and convicted of “offense of violation of the Prohibition Law,” held defective under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903, as not describing an offense.
    2. Bail t&wkey;66 — Recognizance bond, defective in not describing offense, held to require dismissal of appeal.
    Recognizance bond, defective in not describing offense, held to require dismissal of appeal, in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903.
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
    Narsiso Ortiz was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Appeal ordered dismissed.
    Tom. Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

The conviction is for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment, one year, in the penitentiary.

By the terms.of article 903, C. C. P., one of the requisites of a recognizance bond pending appeal from conviction for felony is that the offense of which accused was charged and convicted shall be described. In the present case it is stated in the -recognizance that appellant was charged and convicted of the “offense of violation of the Prohibition Law.” There is no such offense as this known to our statutes.

Because of this defect in the recognizance, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 
      ig^jFor other cases see same topic and KÉY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     