State v. Tincher

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Tincher

45 P. 91, 57 Kan. 136, 1896 Kan. LEXIS 119

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 6, 1896

DocketNo. 10552

StatusPublished

This text of 45 P. 91 (State v. Tincher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Tincher, 45 P. 91, 57 Kan. 136, 1896 Kan. LEXIS 119 (kan 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allen, J. :

The complaint filed against the defendant does not charge an offense under either paragraph 2241 or 7157 of the General Statutes of 1889, and the court ruled correctly in quashing it. Nor was there any error in refusing to permit the state to amend. There is nothing in the record showing in what particular the state desired to amend the charge, and counsel in this court fail to indicate any public offense [138]*138of which, the state claims the defendant was guilty. There is no statute making it a misdemeanor to drive horses across the land of another and allow them to destroy growing grass thereoD, even though it be wilfully and maliciously done. The act does not fall within any provision of the sections of the statute cited. The injured party has his remedy by civil action for trespass.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allen, J. :

The complaint filed against the defendant does not charge an offense under either paragraph 2241 or 7157 of the General Statutes of 1889, and the court ruled correctly in quashing it. Nor was there any error in refusing to permit the state to amend. There is nothing in the record showing in what particular the state desired to amend the charge, and counsel in this court fail to indicate any public offense [138]*138of which, the state claims the defendant was guilty. There is no statute making it a misdemeanor to drive horses across the land of another and allow them to destroy growing grass thereoD, even though it be wilfully and maliciously done. The act does not fall within any provision of the sections of the statute cited. The injured party has his remedy by civil action for trespass.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 P. 91, 57 Kan. 136, 1896 Kan. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tincher-kan-1896.