Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 22 April 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 2944.)
• Citation: 166 S.W. 508
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

166 S.W. 508

BROWN v. STATE.

(No. 2944.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1914.

Appeal from Victoria County Court; J. P. Pool, Judge.

J. W. Brown was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. L. Dupree and C. F. & C. C. Carsner, all of Victoria, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully and willfully obstructing and injuring, and causing this to be done, one of the certain public roads in said county, and fined $50.

The record, practically without contradiction, except as hereinafter mentioned, shows this state of fact:

About a year before September, 1913, Victoria county, by and through its properly constituted authorities, had graded and graveled said public road, making it a solid, smooth graveled road. The country thereabouts was flat, smooth country, except that at one point near a small town or village the road crossed a depression or drain. The county authorities put, at this place, a galvanized iron drain, about two feet in diameter, which was deemed sufficient. A day or two before September 18th a somewhat heavy rain fell in that country, and the water on both sides of this road was backed up considerably by a railroad embankment near, but below, this road culvert. The county commissioner, who for the county and by its authority had had said road constructed and was supervising it, was at said town, and, his attention being called thereto, he examined the situation, and found that the road was not backing up the water, but the backing up and lack of drainage was caused by said railroad embankment. The appellant's residence was several hundred yards above this road, and he, also nearer thereto than his residence, owned a tenant house, and he found that the water was backed up somewhat around his residence, and more so about his tenant house. He learned that said county commissioner was in the town on that occasion, and he had one of his neighbors to tell the commissioner that he and others wanted to see him about said backwater and ask him to fix some time after dinner to meet them. This friend interviewed the commissioner, as requested by appellant, and sought to make this engagement, but the commissioner told him that he had already examined the situation and found that the culvert under the road was amply sufficient to convey the water off, and was not the cause of the water being backed up about appellant's property, but was caused by said railroad, and that if they would get the railroad embankment removed, and the culvert that he had was not sufficient, that he had another iron culvert on the ground, and he would put that in, or whatever was sufficient to properly convey the water away. As the commissioner could not wait to meet the appointment appellant sought, he left the town. After dinner the appellant, with others, met where he had sought the commissioner to meet them, and his friend reported his interview with the commissioner and the result thereof and what was told him by the commissioner. This angered appellant, and he thereupon said: "I do not consider that we have got any commissioner or any commissioners' court; they are not going to do anything; we will just take the matter in our own hands and cut it ourselves anyhow." Appellant testified he did not remember making any such statement. The others thereafter examined the ground, and substantiated what the commissioner had said as to the cause of the backwater and the claimed insufficiency of the culverts under the road. The commissioner also sent word at the time by appellant's friend, telling him and the others not to cut that road. Notwithstanding this, a day or two later, appellant bought, and with the assistance of others under his direction, on Saturday did cut the road and put a wooden culvert therein. The uncontradicted testimony shows, in effect, that the road thereby was injured and was obstructed. Some of the witnesses testified that the road, after it was thus cut by appellant and this wooden culvert put in, was not in good condition, describing how and why it was not, and stating that it was nothing like in as good condition after, as before. The appellant himself testified that at the ends where he put in the wooden culvert the road got boggy on each side, and he afterwards fixed it, saying: "Before I put in this culvert this was a solid gravel road. The road is not as smooth now as it was before I put in the culvert."

Just after appellant cut the road and put in this wooden culvert another heavy rain fell there. The railroad embankment likewise caused the water to back up substantially as it had a few days before in the first rain. On Tuesday or Wednesday after appellant had cut the road and put in this wooden culvert on the previous Saturday, the constable of the precinct saw appellant and others at another point on this same road about 100 yards from where he had previously cut it, prepared to again cut the road at that place. He thereupon went to where they were, inquired what they were going to do, and they told him they were going to put in a wooden culvert. He in effect forbade them to do so, and told them if they did he would arrest them. The constable thereupon went back to his place of business and at once communicated with the county judge and commissioners' court and the said same commissioner who had this road in charge, and told them what appellant was in the act of doing again. They thereupon told the constable to inform appellant that he must not cut that road, and that if he did, all of them who participated would be prosecuted. The constable went back and delivered the message. The parties had just begun operations to cut the road again. Upon the delivery of the message appellant said to his associates: "Let's go ahead and cut it in 5 or 6 places anyhow, and just let them prosecute."...