Godwin v. State

224 S.W. 896, 87 Tex. Crim. 632, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 306
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided October 13, 1920·No. No. 5667.·Published

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of violating the Tick Eradication Law, and punished by a fine of $25, from which conviction he brings this appeal.

The State has filed a motion to strike out the statement of facts herein, for the reason that same is incorporated in the transcript, which motion is overruled. Copying the statement of facts in the transcript has been the recognized procedure in misdemeanor eases. This Court has never held that all the provisions of the so-called “Stenographers’ Act” apply to appeals in misdemeanor cases from county courts. Nor does the opinion in the Gribble case, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 52, 210 S. W. Rep., 215, so announce. We there simply construed Article 845, Vernon’s C. C. P., as applicable to the time of filing statements of facts and bills of exceptions in misdemeanor appeals from County Courts.

It appears from the record that at an election held on May 25, 1918, in Coleman County, Texas, a majority of the votes cast were in favor of tick eradication, and that the statutory steps necessary to make said law effective were taken. On August 26, 1919, a complaint was filed against appellant, charging that on or about May 2, 1919, he was the owner and care-taker of certain livestock there situated, and that he "refused to dip the same, after having been notified, etc., said complaint being substantially in the form outlined by us in the Emberline case, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 399, 212 S. W. Rep., 955. Upon information duly based on said complaint, a trial was had, resulting as stated.

*634 It is urged by appellaqt, that at the time of said prosecution and trial, there was no sufficient quarantine effective in Coleman County, inasmuch as, according to his claim, the Livestock Sanitary Commission of Texas, had caused a proclamation to be issued by the Governor of this State on December 6, 1918, declaring certain territory therein mentioned, to be released from quarantine, which released territory included Coleman County. In support of this contention, we are presented with Supplemental Proclamation No. 12, by the Governor, the applicable part of which is as follows:

“Whereas, The Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, has released from the fever tick quarantine all the counties and parts of counties hereinafter mentioned, effective December 1, 1918, the Live Stock Sanitary Commission of Texas has released all the premises, cattle, horses, mules and asses in said territory from quarantine, except such premises, cattle, horses, mules and asses as are placed under local quarantine by the Live. Stock Sanitary Commission of Texas on and after December 1, 1918

Now therefore, I, W. P. Hobby, Governor of the State of Texas, by virtue of authority vested in me as Governor by the laws of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the following quarantine release and rules and regulations of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission to be in effect on and after December 1-, 1918; said quarantine release and rules and regulations having been regularly adopted by the Live Stock Sanitary Commission of Texas, to be in effect on and after said date.

1. All cattle, horses, mules and asses located on said released premises are hereby granted free and unrestricted movement, and may be driven or shipped to any point in the Free Area without inspection ; provided, they can reach point of destination without being exposed to tick fever infection.

2. Cattle, horses, mules and asses mentioned in the paragraph next preceding must be loaded through clean pens, if they are to be shipped as native (non-infectious) cattle, horses, mules and asses to points in the Free Area. Work stock are not subject to this restriction, but may be moved after exposure, the same as if they were non-exposed.

3. All premises uiider special quarantine on and after December 1, 1918, in said.territory are subject to all the rules and regulations of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission, governing the enforcement of such quarantines, and are subject to all the rules and regulations of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission that were in force before the issuance of this release.

4. All public shipping pens in said territory that are not placed under special quarantine on and after December 1. 1918, are hereby-released from quarantine, and native cattle, horses, mules and asses may be loaded and unloaded through same without restriction. An *635 order of the Live Stock Sanitary Commission of Texas, effective December 1, 1918, will be issued containing a list of all pens under special quarantine in said territory.

5. The territory hereinbefore referred to is composed of the following counties and parts of counties, and is hereby declared to be a part of the Free Area: Bosque, Callahan, Coleman,” etc.

This proclamation, upon its face, would seem to release all premises, in Coleman County, from quarantine, except those which might be placed under local quarantine by the Live Stock Sanitary Commission on and after December 1, 1918; but the question arises as to the power and right of said Commission to make rules and regulations releasing from quarantine cattle, etc., in territory which, by a local option election, has voted to take up the work of tick eradication. If this right and power existed, then it seems to us that the contention of appellant must be upheld, in the absence of a showing that a local quarantine was declared upon his premises and live stock by said Commission, or that in proper manner the release of said county contained in supplemental proclamation No. 12 had been annulled after December 1, 1918, which local quarantine he had violated. Section 7, of Chapter 60, of the Acts of the Regular Session of the Legislature of 1917, which Act is known as the “Tick Eradication Law,” reads as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Godwin v. State, 224 S.W. 896, 87 Tex. Crim. 632, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 306 (Tex. 1920).

224 S.W. 896 (Godwin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gribble v. State
210 S.W. 215 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Ex Parte Leslie
223 S.W. 227 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1920)