Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Tex. 94

Breeding v. State

Texas Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1868

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1868-01-15

The case was tried before Hon. Isaac B. McFarland, one of the district judges. The appellant, a freedman, was found guilty of adultery, and fined $100. He appealed, but the recognizance did not state the offense.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1905

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Morrill, O. J.

¶1— The attorney general, in behalf of the state, requests that the appeal be dismissed for want of a legal recognizance.

¶2On an examination of the record it appears that the said Breeding gave notice of appeal to this court, but the record does not disclose that he was committed to jail or entered into a recognizance, and without one of them jurisdiction in this court does not attach.

¶3There is in the record what purports to be a recognizance, but inasmuch as it does not contain either the name of the offense with which the appellant is charged, or that of any offense against the laws of the state, it is not a legal recognizance. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2731.)

¶4This is no new principle, but simply a repetition of what has been declared in numerous cases heretofore by this court. (Paschal’s Dig., Note 708.) Motion sustained.

¶5Appeal dismissed.

/31/tex/94 · .json · Public domain