State v. Hutchinson

26 Tex. 111
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 26 Tex. 111 (State v. Hutchinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hutchinson, 26 Tex. 111 (Tex. 1861).

Opinion

Wheeler, C. J.

There is no error in the judgment. The objection that the indictment does not charge that the defendant “did” the acts supposed to constitute the offence, was well taken. The omission of so important a word, a word indispensable to make sense, in charging the offence, ought not to be supplied by intendment.

The indictment is bad moreover in not pursuing the statutory definition of the offence. It omits to charge the act of the defendant to have been done “without complying with the laws regulating estrays,” which is made by the statute an ingredient of the offence. (Penal Code, art. 7756.)

The judgment, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Pass v. State
634 S.W.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Zapata v. State
493 S.W.2d 801 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Barfield v. State
45 S.W. 1015 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1898)
Scroggins v. State
35 S.W. 968 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Walker v. State
9 Tex. Ct. App. 177 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1880)
Riviere v. State
7 Tex. Ct. App. 55 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1879)
Morris v. State
4 Tex. Ct. App. 554 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)
Ewing v. State
1 Tex. Ct. App. 362 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1876)
Hicks v. State
32 Tex. 368 (Texas Supreme Court, 1869)
Gonzales v. State
31 Tex. 205 (Texas Supreme Court, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Tex. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hutchinson-tex-1861.