Spencer v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Spencer v. State

215 S.W. 966, 86 Tex. Crim. 197, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 369

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 5, 1919

DocketNo. 5515.

StatusPublished

This text of 215 S.W. 966 (Spencer 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

Spencer v. State, 215 S.W. 966, 86 Tex. Crim. 197, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 369 (Tex. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

The complaint and information seem to have been brought under Articles 1255a, 1255b and 1255c of Vernon’s Ann. P. C., and Section 2278 and its various subdivisions as found in Mr. Branch’s Ann. P. C., at page 1252. These provisions provide a punishment for any person who hunts without authority : $pd' without consent of the owner upon inclosed or posted lands of , 'another, the punishment for a violation being not to exceed two hun^t^red dollars. That statute refers to inclosed lands of two thousand acres or more. The evidence shows, for the State, that appellant hunted upon the inclosed lands of- another, without consent, the enclosure containing not more than six hundred acres, the punishment for a violation of which is not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.

■ Exceptions' were urged against the pleadings, which were overruled, There was a question of variance between the allegations and proof, and error in the court’s charge and refusal to give special instructions. Without taking up these matters seriatim, the ease may be disposed of upon "the proposition that appellant was tried under a statute which does not' apply to the facts, and the court gave an erroneous instruction as to the punishment. In other words, if appellant violated the law he did so by hunting on the enclosed land of another, the amount of-the . enclosure not exceeding six hundred acres. He was informed against ^.nd tried under the statute which relates to the larger class of enclosures. Under the authority of Berry v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 602, this judgment will have to be reversed. If a prosecution''¿s., sought .hereafter it should be under article 1255 of Branch’s Aifii. P.' C., found on pages 1251 and 1252, and not under the article which has reference to the larger enclosures. '

The judgment is reversed'1 and the cause remanded.

sReversed and remanded.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

The complaint and information seem to have been brought under Articles 1255a, 1255b and 1255c of Vernon’s Ann. P. C., and Section 2278 and its various subdivisions as found in Mr. Branch’s Ann. P. C., at page 1252. These provisions provide a punishment for any person who hunts without authority : $pd' without consent of the owner upon inclosed or posted lands of , 'another, the punishment for a violation being not to exceed two hun^t^red dollars. That statute refers to inclosed lands of two thousand acres or more. The evidence shows, for the State, that appellant hunted upon the inclosed lands of- another, without consent, the enclosure containing not more than six hundred acres, the punishment for a violation of which is not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.

■ Exceptions' were urged against the pleadings, which were overruled, There was a question of variance between the allegations and proof, and error in the court’s charge and refusal to give special instructions. Without taking up these matters seriatim, the ease may be disposed of upon "the proposition that appellant was tried under a statute which does not' apply to the facts, and the court gave an erroneous instruction as to the punishment. In other words, if appellant violated the law he did so by hunting on the enclosed land of another, the amount of-the . enclosure not exceeding six hundred acres. He was informed against ^.nd tried under the statute which relates to the larger class of enclosures. Under the authority of Berry v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 602, this judgment will have to be reversed. If a prosecution''¿s., sought .hereafter it should be under article 1255 of Branch’s Aifii. P.' C., found on pages 1251 and 1252, and not under the article which has reference to the larger enclosures. '

The judgment is reversed'1 and the cause remanded.

sReversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.W. 966, 86 Tex. Crim. 197, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-state-texcrimapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack