Lee v. State
229 S.W. 515, 89 Tex. Crim. 62, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 354
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 90 Tex. Crim. 458 →
Opinion
Appellant was convicted for violating the tick quarantine law in failing to dip his cattle when directed so to do.
We find the facts practically identical with those-shown in the case of W. B. Walker v. State, this day decided. And the same questions of law are raised in the two cases. Believing the Walker case to have been properly disposed of by affirmance, a discussion of the same questions here would be useless.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lee v. State, 229 S.W. 515, 89 Tex. Crim. 62, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 354 (Tex. 1921).
229 S.W. 515 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.