
    BARNABY v. STATE.
    (No. 8595.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 7, 1925.
    Supplemental Order as to Mandate, Feb. 11, 1925.)
    1. Bail <@=»66 — Recognizance stating offense as that of violating prohibition law held defec- . tive.
    A recognizance on appeal from conviction for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, which states the offense as violating the prohibition law, held defective, as not stating the offense of which accused has been convicted, as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903. t
    
    2. Bail <3=>63 — Proper recognizance essential to give appellate court jurisdiction, where appellant is at large.
    Where the defendant is at large, a proper recognizance on appeal is essential, in order to give the appellate court jurisdiction.
    Appeal from District Court, Walker County; Carl T. Harper, Judge.
    A. C. Barnaby was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Gates & Briggs, of Huntsville, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State. •
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary .for a period of one year.

The recognizance, as contained in the record, is defective, in that it states that the appellant “stands charged in this court with the offense of violating the prohibition law.” This does not name any offense denounced in our Penal Code. The form of recognizance demanded by the Legislature expressly requires that the recognizance state the offense of which the accused has been convicted. See article 903, C. C. P.

The state’s attorney insists upon a dismissal of the appeal. The appellant being at large, a proper recognizance is essential, in order to give this court jurisdiction. See McKey v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 220 S. W. 549; Singleton v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 221 S. W. 610; Goss v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 202 S. W. 956; Godby v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 360, 227 S. W. 192; Westbrook v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 466, 227 S. W. 1104; Robert v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 488, 228 S. W. 230.

The appeal is dismissed.

Supplemental Order.

After the dismissal of this cause on the 7th of January, 1925, appellant’s request for permission to file an amended recognizance or bond was granted. None having been filed within 15 days, the mandate showing dismissal will be issued.  