1. Local Option — Recognizance.
Where the recognizance on appeal from a conviction for a violation of local option recites, that the appellants stand charged with the offense of "unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district." Held, it does not recite any offense.
2. Same — Recognizance Must be Separate for Joint Defendants.
Where two or more parties are jointly indicted and tried, the recognizance upon appeal from their conviction must not be a joint one. Each party must enter into a separate recognizance.
DAVIDSON, JUDGE.
Appellants were jointly indicted for a violation of the local option law, convicted, and appeal. The Assistant Attorney-General, upon two grounds, moves a dismissal of the appeal: First, that the recognizance is insufficient in not reciting the offense charged against appellants, and in not reciting any offense; and, second, because the recognizance on appeal is a joint undertaking by the appellants, and not separate, as it should be. The recognizance recites that the appellants stand charged with the offense of "unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district." This allegation does not recite the offense charged in the information. In fact, it recites no offense at all. We further find that the recognizance is a joint obligation. This renders it fatally defective. Where two or more parties are jointly indicted in misdemeanor cases, and each appeals from a conviction, each appellant must enter into a separate recognizance. A joint recognizance, as in this case, will not suffice. The motion is well taken, and the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.