Hunt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hunt v. State

25 S.W. 127, 33 Tex. Crim. 93, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 46

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 10, 1894

DocketNo. 262.

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.W. 127 (Hunt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt v. State, 25 S.W. 127, 33 Tex. Crim. 93, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 46 (Tex. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMKINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of butchering unmarked and unbranded animals, under article 754of the Penal Code, and his punishment assessed at $50, from which he appeals. The evidence shows that appellant is a butcher; that on the night of March 9, 1893, he slaughtered two unmarked yearlings for a stranger, who said he had driven them from Lancaster, but, in fact, had stolen them four miles southeast of Oak Cliff; that, after slaughtering them, he bought them *94 at a low price and sold them in Dallas. Article 754, Penal Code, declares, that if a butcher kills any unmarked or unbranded animal for market, or shall purchase and kill any animal without a written transfer from the vendor, he shall be fined, etc. The evidence shows a violation of the statute, not only in the slaughter of the animals, but in the purchase of the same. • The fact that the killing preceded the purchase was immaterial, as it was all done in one transaction, and between the same parties.

The charge of the court was sufficient and correct. Judgment affirmed. ■

Affirmed. t

Judges all present and concurring.

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

SIMKINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of butchering unmarked and unbranded animals, under article 754of the Penal Code, and his punishment assessed at $50, from which he appeals. The evidence shows that appellant is a butcher; that on the night of March 9, 1893, he slaughtered two unmarked yearlings for a stranger, who said he had driven them from Lancaster, but, in fact, had stolen them four miles southeast of Oak Cliff; that, after slaughtering them, he bought them *94 at a low price and sold them in Dallas. Article 754, Penal Code, declares, that if a butcher kills any unmarked or unbranded animal for market, or shall purchase and kill any animal without a written transfer from the vendor, he shall be fined, etc. The evidence shows a violation of the statute, not only in the slaughter of the animals, but in the purchase of the same. • The fact that the killing preceded the purchase was immaterial, as it was all done in one transaction, and between the same parties.

The charge of the court was sufficient and correct. Judgment affirmed. ■

Affirmed. t

Judges all present and concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.W. 127, 33 Tex. Crim. 93, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-texcrimapp-1894.