Buford v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1876 |
| Citation | 44 Tex. 525 |
| Parties | J. M. BUFORD v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from San Saba. Tried below before the Hon. E. B. Turner.
Buford was indicted May 20, 1875, for fraudulently altering the brand of a cow, of the value of ten dollars, and of a calf, of the value of four dollars, on 20th March, 1875.
On the trial, the court instructed the jury, after defining the offense: “The punishment for the theft of cattle, by the law of 1866, which is the lightest punishment affixed to theft now in force, is by confinement in the penitentiary not to exceed two years, or by fine not to exceed one thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment, or by one and not of the other, or by part of one or both.”
The jury found the defendant guilty, and fixed his punishment at one year and eight months in the penitentiary, on which judgment was rendered.
Other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
The defendant appealed.
C. C. McGinnis and Daniel H. Triplett, for appellant.
George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.
Appellant assigns various errors for the reversal of the judgment in this case, but it is not deemed necessary to examine more than one of the grounds, to wit, that the court erred in its charge to the jury.
The indictment charges the defendant with having fraudulently and feloniously altered the brand of a cow and yearling calf, not being his own property, without the consent of the owner, and with intent to defraud, &c.
The act of February 12, 1858, (Paschal's Dig., art. 2412,) under which it is probable the indictment was found, punishes this offense in the same manner as if the defendant had committed a theft of the animals.
The court charged the jury that the act of 1866, for the punishment of theft of cattle, was applicable to this case. This act punishes the driving of stock from the accustomed range, under certain circumstances, by imprisonment in the penitentiary or by fine, or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the jury; or, when the offense is a misdemeanor, it is punished by fine not exceeding double the value of the stock. (Paschal's Dig., arts. 2410 b and 2410 c.) Article 2410 a punishes theft of cattle of over twenty dollars in value by confinement in the penitentiary, and under twenty dollars in value by confinement in the county jail and by fine, or by imprisonment without fine. The act of 1866 was not applicable as the punishment for altering the brand of cattle....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. State
...of an incorrect charge on punishment required reversal of the judgment, even though harm or prejudice was not shown. E.g. Buford v. State, 44 Tex. 525 (1876); Howard v. State, 18 Tex.App. 348 (1885); Gardenhire v. State, 18 Tex.App. 565 (1885). Now, however, the rule is well established tha......
-
Thompson v. State
...also, to the same effect, Howard v. State, 18 Tex. App. 348; Wilson v. State, 14 Tex. App. 524; Bouldin v. State, 8 Tex. App. 624; Buford v. State, 44 Tex. 525. That line of cases has long ago been abandoned by our court, as may be seen by an examination of the authorities collated under se......
- Davis v. State
-
Bell v. State
...Id. 351; Blackwell's Case, 30 Tex. App. 419, 17 S. W. Rep. 1061; Wilson's Case, 14 Tex. App. 524; Cohen's Case, 11 Tex. App. 337; Buford's Case, 44 Tex. 525. Judgment affirmed. All judges present and ...