Caldwell v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1909 |
| Citation | 115 S.W. 597 |
| Parties | CALDWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. M. Holland, Judge.
Ed Caldwell was convicted of malicious mischief in shooting a dog, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Barry Miller and N. P. Morrison, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant appeals from a conviction on a charge of malicious mischief, in shooting a certain dog, had in the county court, at law, in Dallas county.
The evidence briefly shows that appellant owned a considerable place in the northern part of Dallas county, and on the place he had a certain sheep pasture, fenced in with net and barbed wire, some 50 inches high, in which he kept his sheep; that he had posted this place, and had, besides, given personal notice to some, if not all, his neighbors, that hunting would not be allowed therein. On the trial one witness was permitted to testify to a statement, made by appellant in February, before the commission of the alleged offense in the following December, that if any dogs got in his pasture he would kill them, and that night his dog was killed. There is nothing to connect the appellant with the killing of the dog, except the inference from his statement. We think that, as presented, this testimony was not admissible. This was an extraneous matter, wholly unrelated to this case, and not shown by the evidence to have any connection with it, or that this dog was even killed by appellant.
Again, on the trial appellant proposed to prove that the presence of dogs among sheep at the time in question would have frightened the sheep and caused the ewes, which were heavy with lambs, at that time of the year, to have lost their lambs, and that it was dangerous to his sheep for dogs to be in his pasture and with the sheep at that time, and that he knew this from his experience with sheep and from the condition of the ewes at the time. It was urged that this testimony was admissible for the purpose of rebutting the charge of malice and willfulness and wantonness, charged in the affidavit against defendant in shooting said dog, and would have tended to show that, if defendant did shoot said dog in his said pasture, it was done in the protection of his property and was not done either willfully, maliciously, or wantonly. This testimony was rejected. Under the case of Thomas v. State, 14 Tex. App. 200, there would seem to be no doubt that this evidence should have been received. In that case, speaking for the court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greer v. Franklin Life Ins. Co.
...that there is a difference between its meaning in "common parlance" and in the field of criminal law (see Caldwell v. State, 55 Tex. Cr.App. 164, 115 S.W. 597, 131 Am.St.Rep. 809), the latter, to judge from expressions in various decisions of our Court of Criminal Appeals and in texts such ......
-
Choate v. State
...animal was trespassing, would be drawn unless the contrary appeared. See Thomas v. State, 14 Tex. App. 200; Caldwell v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 164, 115 S. W. 597, 131 Am. St. Rep. 809; Hobbs v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 337, 170 S. W. It was shown without controversy that the appellant shot and ......
-
Lewis v. State
...Thomas v. State, 14 Tex. App. 200, and Trice v. State, 17 Tex. App. 43. In addition we call attention to Caldwell v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 164, 115 S. W. 597, 131 Am. St. Rep. 809. The charge given in the present instance would convey to the lay mind the impression that if the money was int......
-
Cornutt v. State
...with lambs, to lose them, was admissible to rebut the charge of malice and wantonness in shooting the dog. Caldwell v. State, 115 S. W. 597, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 164, 131 Am. St. Rep. 809 (quoting and adopting Thomas v. State, 14 Tex. App. 200)." 4 Words and Phrases, Second Series, And again from......