Brookreson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 1906 |
| Parties | BROOKRESON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Taylor County Court; D. G. Hill, Judge.
John Brookreson was convicted of killing a dog with intent to injure the owner, and appeals. Affirmed.
Wagstaff & Davidson, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted under article 786, Pen. Code, for killing a dog with intent to injure the owner. The case was tried before the judge without a jury, and the only question presented for our consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
The facts summarized show that Tune, the owner of the dog, and several other parties, were out deerhunting with their dogs in the neighborhood of appellant's pasture, which consisted of some 1,500 acres. Appellant kept cattle and horses in his pasture, which had been posted with notices forbidding persons to hunt; but the notices had been torn down, except perhaps one. The state's testimony shows that the dogs, particularly the dog that was killed, was trailing a deer, and had passed into the pasture of appellant, following the trail. The parties met appellant in the road outside his pasture a short time before the alleged offense was committed. In a few minutes after passing appellant they heard a shot and a dog "holler." They at once went into the pasture and saw the dog had been shot and killed. At the same time appellant was seen some half mile distant, loping over the hill. Appellant's testimony (by his own evidence) showed that he kept cattle and horses in the pasture, and had been annoyed by dogs running in the pasture previously, and that he had not given the parties his consent to hunt in said pasture. He testified that, after meeting said parties and going into his pasture, he heard the dog in question barking and trailing inside of his pasture, and saw his cattle running off, and he shot the dog.
Taking this testimony pro and con, was it sufficient to have authorized the finding? It has been held that the intent to injure the owner may be presumed from the act itself, as that it was shown to have been willfully done. Lane v. State, 16 Tex. App. 172. On the other hand, the decisions indicate that it is legitimate to rebut the evidence of willfulness or intent to injure with circumstances that justify the act, as that the stock invading one's pasture were breachy and his crops were being devastated by them, and after the animal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Churchill
-
Johnston v. Wilson
... ... in error insists that this charge was error for the following ... "(a) It was contrary to the principle of law of force in ... this state that a man has the right to protect his property, ... and especially his domestic fowls and animals which are ... incapable of protecting ... ...
-
Johnston v. Wilson
...Job v. Harlan, 13 Ohio St. 485; Finnerty v. Lamareaux, 10 Kulp (Pa.) 576; Harris v. Eaton, 20 R. I. 81, 37 Atl. 308; Brookerson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 421, 93 S. W. 725; Miller v. Spaulding, 41 Wis. 221. It is true that in the Georgia case of Miller v. State, supra, Judge Powell, who deli......
- Gunn v. State