Nolan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Nolan v. State

129 S.W. 840, 60 Tex. Crim. 5, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 394

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 15, 1910

DocketNo. 35.

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.W. 840 (Nolan 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

Nolan v. State, 129 S.W. 840, 60 Tex. Crim. 5, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 394 (Tex. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant was charged by information with the offense of unlawfully taking water without authority from an irrigating canal, known as the Salitral ditch, situated near Clint, in El Paso County, and tried upon an information filed on the 30th day of August, 1909, and suffered conviction with a penalty of a one dollar fine and cost of prosecution.

There are numerous errors assigned to the giving and refusing of charges, and other matters, but in view of the disposition made of the case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon them.

The motion in arrest of judgment and to quash the complaint and information suggests to our minds a fatal defect in this: That there is no allegation in either the complaint or information of ownership of the canal or ditch from which the water was taken. We think the offense denounced in the statute under which this prosecution is had is analogous to those of theft and malicious mischief involving a trespass upon the property of others, and that, therefore, ownership should be charged. Being defective in this regard, the complaint is held insufficient, and, therefore, the cause is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

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

Appellant was charged by information with the offense of unlawfully taking water without authority from an irrigating canal, known as the Salitral ditch, situated near Clint, in El Paso County, and tried upon an information filed on the 30th day of August, 1909, and suffered conviction with a penalty of a one dollar fine and cost of prosecution.

There are numerous errors assigned to the giving and refusing of charges, and other matters, but in view of the disposition made of the case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon them.

The motion in arrest of judgment and to quash the complaint and information suggests to our minds a fatal defect in this: That there is no allegation in either the complaint or information of ownership of the canal or ditch from which the water was taken. We think the offense denounced in the statute under which this prosecution is had is analogous to those of theft and malicious mischief involving a trespass upon the property of others, and that, therefore, ownership should be charged. Being defective in this regard, the complaint is held insufficient, and, therefore, the cause is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.W. 840, 60 Tex. Crim. 5, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nolan-v-state-texcrimapp-1910.