Cogdell v. State

Decision Date21 February 1917
Docket Number(No. 4364.)
PartiesCOGDELL v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Haskell County Court; A. J. Smith, Judge.

Earl Cogdell was convicted for violating the feeding stuff law, and he appeals. Reversed.

Scott W. Key, of Haskell, and Chas. L. Black, of Austin, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted for violating the "feeding stuff" law, and fined $250. The offenses are prescribed by article 735 of our Penal Code, which, as applicable herein, is:

"Any manufacturer, importer or agent, selling, offering or exposing for sale, any concentrated commercial feeding stuff, * * * with a label, stating that said feeding stuff contains substantially a larger percentage of protein, fat or nitrogen-free extract, or a smaller quantity of crude fiber than is contained therein, * * * shall * * * be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars."

The information and complaint aver:

That appellant was "the agent and manager of Western Cotton Oil & Gin Company, an incorporated company engaged in said state in the manufacture and sale of concentrated commercial feeding stuff, to wit, cotton seed meal and hulls, of said county and state, and the said Earl Cogdell did then and there in said Haskell county, Tex., as such agent and manager, sell to A. F. Moffitt, a person doing business under the name of A. F. Moffitt & Co. in Cleburne, Johnson county, Tex., 200 sacks of cotton seed meal and hulls, each bag containing said meal and hulls had a label thereon stating that said feeding stuff contained substantially a larger percentage of protein than was actually then and there contained therein, to wit, the said label contained the statement that said feeding stuff contained not less than 42 per cent. of protein, whereas in truth and in fact not more than 35.50 per cent. of protein was actually then and there in said feeding stuff, and said label thereon further stated that there was a smaller quantity of crude fiber than was then and there actually contained therein, to wit, the said label stated that said feeding stuff in said bags contained not more than 12 per cent. of crude fiber, whereas in truth and in fact said feeding stuff in said bags contained more than 14 per cent. of crude fiber and some of said bags or sacks contained 14.98 per cent. of crude fiber, and no less."

Appellant attacks said law, claiming that wherein it prescribes that the label stating that said feeding stuff contains "substantially" a larger per cent. of protein, etc., than is contained therein, is so indefinite and of such doubtful construction that it cannot be understood, and that, under article 6, P. C., it is therefore wholly inoperative. This question is not free of difficulty. It seems if we should follow our Supreme Court in the case of the State v. Railway Co., 179 S. W. 867, holding that "light repairs," in our car shed statute, is not too indefinite or uncertain, and the case of State v. Railway Co., 154 S. W. 1159, under our "water-closet" statute, holding that statute valid, and Bradford v. State, 180 S. W. 702, and the authorities cited in those cases, appellant's attack should not be sustained. However, under the provisions of our Penal Code, and under the authorities in point cited in State v. I. & G. N. Ry. Co., 165 S. W. 892, by the Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston, this court has reached the conclusion that that part of said article 735, P. C., which attempts to make it an offense, if the label on the article of feeding stuff states that it contains "substantially" a larger percentage, etc., than is therein, is too indefinite and too uncertain to prescribe an offense. There is a difference between what certainty must be prescribed to make an offense from that which exempts from an offense, and said cases in 179 S. W. and 180 S. W. could be distinguished from this case, but the case i...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Purcell
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 15, 1924
    ... ... State, 41 Tex. Crim. 59, 52 S.W. 77; ... Czarra v. Board of Medical Supervisors, 25 App. Cas ... D. C. 443; James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 23 S.Ct ... 678, 47 L.Ed. 979; State v. Gaster, 45 La. Ann. 636, ... 12 So. 739; State v. Partlow, 91 N.C. 550, 49 Am ... Rep. 652; Cogdell v. State, 81 Tex. Crim. 66, 193 ... S.W. 675; Mathews v. Murphy, 23 Ky. L. 750, 63 S.W ... 785, 54 L. R. A. 415; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v ... Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 132, 59 Am. St. 457, 35 S.W. 129, ... 33 L. R. A. 209; Stoutenburgh v. Frazier, 16 App. D ... C. 229, 48 L. R. A. 220; Hewitt ... ...
  • Christy-Dolph v. Gragg
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 14, 1932
    ...and the Court of Criminal Appeals of the state of Texas. See M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 100 Tex. 424, 100 S. W. 766; Sogdell v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 193 S. W. 675; Griffin v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 498, 218 S. W. 494; Russell v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 228 S. W. 566; Snider v. Sta......
  • International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Mallard
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1925
    ...enactment. State v. Foster, 31 Tex. 578; Augustine v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 59, 52 S. W. 77, 96 Am. St. Rep. 765; Cogdell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 193 S. W. 675; Russell v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 228 S. W. 566; Snider v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 230 S. W. 146; Graham v. Hines (Tex. Ci......
  • Ex Parte Leslie
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 9, 1920
    ...some degree of certainty. Penal Code, art. 6; Augustine v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 59, 52 S. W. 77, 96 Am. St. Rep. 765; Sogdell v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 193 S. W. 675; Griffin v. State, 218 S. W. 494; Railway v. State, 100 Tex. 420, 100 S. W. 766. And if by the law one is, as in the pres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT