Gill v. State

Decision Date31 October 1867
Citation30 Tex. 514
PartiesROBERT GILL v. THE STATE.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

The act of 4th March, 1863 (Pas. Dig. arts. 2417, 3418), was not repealed by the act upon the same subject of 13th November, 1866, vol. 20, p. 224. Both acts being on the same subject, stand, so far as the latter does not supply the former. Ante, p. 512.

APPEAL from Bastrop. The case was tried before Hon. JOHN IRELAND, one of the district judges.

The defend??nt was indicted under the act of 4th March, 1863, to regulate the sale of beef cattle, etc., for that he butchered beef for the market, etc., without keeping and recording lists of marks and brands, as by that act required. Pas. Dig. arts. 2417, 2418. By a motion to quash, and one in arrest of judgment after conviction, the defendant raised the question as to whether the act had been repealed by the 3d section of the act of 1866 (vol. 20, p. 224; ante, p. 512). This was the only question decided in that case.

George W. Jones, for appellant, insisted that the act of 13th November, 1866, repealed the act regulating beef cattle. Pas. Dig. art. 1618.

No brief for the state has been furnished the reporter.

CALDWELL, J.

The defendant was indicted at the December term of the district court for 1866, under article 2417 of Paschal's Digest. The alleged offense was a “failure to return lists of the marks and brands, stating in said lists from whom purchased, of all cattle slaughtered,” etc., verified by affidavit as therein required. Trial and conviction at the June term, 1867.

It is insisted by the defendant that the act of November, 1866, on the same subject, creates a new and different offense (Pamph. Laws, p. 224, sec. 3, 1866), and repeals the act under which he was indicted, without substituting any penalty, which would entitle him to a discharge.

We think not. Both acts are on the same subject, and have the same object in view. The repealing statute only supplies more stringent rules of registration of marks and brands, and affixed a greater penalty for its violation. There is no error, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Shaw v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 25 juin 1913
    ...nor dismissed by the trial court. See articles 15, 16, 17, 19, Revised Penal Code 1911. Also, Roberts v. State, 17 Tex. App. 148; Gill v. State, 30 Tex. 514; Ezzell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 521, 16 S. W. 782; Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 245, 32 Am. Rep. 595; Simms v. State, 8 Tex. App. 230; ......

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