Holman v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Smith. The appellants were jointly tried-and convicted of permitting playing at cards in their house for retailing spirituous liquors. They moved for a new trial, which was overruled. There were in the record two recognizances, one appearing to have been entered into by Holman in a ease entitled “The State of Texas v. Hardy Holman,” the other by Pierce in a •case entitled “The State of Texas v. William C. Pierce.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Smith. The appellants were jointly tried-and convicted of permitting playing at cards in their house for retailing spirituous liquors. They moved for a new trial, which was overruled. There were in the record two recognizances, one appearing to have been entered into by Holman in a ease entitled “The State of Texas v. Hardy Holman,” the other by Pierce in a •case entitled “The State of Texas v. William C. Pierce.” The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal for the want of a recognizance.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
In this case there is no apparent connection between the recognizances in the record and the case presented by it. Neither purports oí *280appears to be a recognizance of the defendants, or either of them, in the case of The State of Texas v. Ilardy Holman and William C. Pierce. If they were intended to bo recognizances in that case they do not describe the case correctly by its style and title, nor in any other manner connect themselves with it, but they purport to be recognizances taken in other and different cases. It is plain, therefore, that the recognizances in the record cannot support…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Grant v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1880
- Knowlton and Dominguez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914