Hannon v. State

• Decision Date: 03 May 1905
• Citation: 87 S.W. 152
• Parties: HANNON et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 152

87 S.W. 152

HANNON et al. v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1905.

Appeal from Gonzales County Court; W. W. Glass, Judge.

J. W. Hannon was convicted of peddling without a license, and appealed, giving bond with J. D. Sayers, Jr., and W. J. Bright as sureties. The appeal was dismissed (see 73 S. W. 1053), and, Hannon failing to appear when the case was called in the county court, judgment of forfeiture was entered on the bond, and he and his sureties appeal. Reversed.

T. F. Harwood and C. C. Walsh, for appellants. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

On August 27, 1902, J. W. Hannon, an employé of the Wrought Iron Range Company, was convicted in the county court of Gonzales county upon an information charging him with unlawfully engaging in, following, and pursuing the occupation of a peddler, and peddling cooking stoves and ranges—an occupation then and there made taxable by law—without first having obtained a license to pursue such occupation, and, upon conviction, was sentenced to pay a fine of $600. From this judgment an appeal was taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals; and upon taking the appeal J. W. Hannon entered into a recognizance bond, with J. D. Sayers, Jr., and W. J. Bright as sureties, conditioned "that the said J. W. Hannon, who stands charged in this court with the offense of pursuing occupation without license, and who has been convicted of said offense in this court, shall appear before the court from day to day and from term to term of the same, and not depart without leave, in order to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas in this case." This recognizance was for the sum of $1,500. On April 15, 1903, Hannon's appeal was dismissed by this court upon the ground that the recognizance was fatally defective, because it failed to allege that Hannon was convicted of a misdemeanor, and also failed to allege the amount of the fine imposed. Hannon v. State, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 969, 73 S. W. 1053. At the same term of the court at which Hannon's appeal was dismissed, this court held that the statute for the violation of which Hannon was convicted did not apply to persons who conducted their business in the method pursued by Hannon, as it was interstate commerce. Potts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 74 S. W. 31. After the dismissal of Hannon's appeal, said cause was called in the county court of Gonzales county, and, Hannon failing to make his appearance, his...