Rains v. State

268 S.W. 1118, 99 Tex. Crim. 206, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 102

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rains v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 Tex. Crim. 576 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 11, 1925·No. No. 8138.·Published

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for violating the tick law; punishment fixed at a fine of twenty-five dollars.

The only testimony which has been observed by us is to the effect that the cattle in question were the property of the wife of the appellant and that she and her son were their caretakers.

The averment in the information that the appellant was the owner and caretaker of the cattle is not sustained by the evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for violating the tick law; punishment fixed at a fine of twenty-five dollars.

The only testimony which has been observed by us is to the effect that the cattle in question were the property of the wife of the appellant and that she and her son were their caretakers.

The averment in the information that the appellant was the owner and caretaker of the cattle is not sustained by the evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Rains v. State, 268 S.W. 1118, 99 Tex. Crim. 206, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 102 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

268 S.W. 1118 (Rains v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.