From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saye v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Apr 10, 1912
145 S.W. 1189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)

Opinion

No. 1699.

Decided April 10, 1912.

Taking Watermelons — Recognizance — Jurisdiction.

Where appellant did not enter into a recognizance during the term of the court in which he was convicted, but after adjournment entered into a so-called appeal bond, the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction of the appeal.

Appeal from the County Court of Franklin. Tried below before the Hon. G.E. Cowan.

Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully taking watermelons; penalty, a fine of $5.

The opinion states the case.

L.W. Davidson, for appellant.

C.E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.


Appellant was prosecuted and convicted for unlawfully taking and carrying away from the farm of another, naming who it was, melons and fined $5.

He did not enter into any recognizance during the term of court, but six days after the court adjourned he entered into a bond giving sureties which was approved by the clerk and not by the court. Such proceeding does not give this court jurisdiction of the appeal. Terry v. State, recently decided wherein the authorities are cited.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Saye v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Apr 10, 1912
145 S.W. 1189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
Case details for

Saye v. State

Case Details

Full title:OWEN SAYE v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Apr 10, 1912

Citations

145 S.W. 1189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
145 S.W. 1189

Citing Cases

Welch v. the State

In fact, such is the statute, article 820, C.C.P. An appeal bond such as that contained in the record in this…

Dickey v. the State

R.H. Templeton, for appellant. — On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Baskin v. State, 171 S.W.…