Senterfit v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Parties | REUBEN SENTERFIT v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Lampasas. Tried below before the Hon. E. B. Turner.
No brief furnished.
The indictment in this case charges “that Reuben Senterfit, on the first day of December, A. D. 1873, did drive his own stock, raised by himself, to wit, ten cows, each of the value of ten dollars, and ten beef steers, each of the value of fifteen dollars, from the county of Lampasas, where said stock was raised, to market, and did then and there fail and refuse to procure a certified copy of his marks and brands before he drove said cows and steers to market of the said county; and said Senterfit was found in another county, to wit, Travis county, driving said cows and steers, they being animals to be sold in market; and when out of Lampasas county and in Travis county, he, said Senterfit, did not have in his possession the recorded list of his marks and brands for said animals; and that said Senterfit drove out of Lampasas county said animals to market in Travis county, Texas, without having either the clerk of the County Court or the clerk of the District Court of Lampasas county to properly record said marks and brands of said animals, in a book kept by the clerk for that purpose, and with his certificate of the record under seal attached.”
There was a motion to quash said indictment, setting up that the indictment was vague and insufficient, and that art. 6556, Pas. Dig., under which it was found, was repealed by art. 6560.
The indictment was further excepted to, on the ground that it charged an offense in Travis county, and not in Lampasas county. These motions or exceptions were overruled. The jury brought in the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor, in driving from the county of Lampasas one cow brute, and assess his fine at eighteen dollars.” There was a motion for new trial, on the ground that the verdict was not responsive to the indictment, and did not show that defendant was found guilty of the offense charged in the indictment. This motion, if it be necessary to so treat it, may be regarded as a motion in arrest of judgment. (See Calvin v. State, 25 Tex., 795.) We think the verdict was clearly insufficient. It does not sufficiently appear that the misdemeanor of which the jury find the defendant guilty is that charged in the indictment, or that the cow which they find him guilty of driving from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State, 23176.
...37 Tex.Cr.R. 257, 39 S.W. 665; Mohan v. State, 42 Tex. Cr.R. 410, 60 S.W. 552; Freeman v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 224 S.W. 1087; Senterfit v. State, 41 Tex. 186. While none of the cases last above cited are prosecutions for the same offense attempted to be charged against appellant it is di......
-
Moody v. State
...enter judgment. See Guest v. State, 24 Tex. App. 530, 7 S. W. 242; Slaughter v. State, 24 Tex. 410; Alston v. State, 41 Tex. 39; Senterfit v. State, 41 Tex. 186; Lomax v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 318, 43 S. W. 92. These authorities we think are directly in point in this case. Where the party s......
-
State v. Austin
... ... the defendant "guilty of the crime of assault with ... intent to commit a felony;" but what felony he intended ... to commit is not designated, and can only be inferred. See ... State v. Turner, 19 Iowa 144, and cases therein ... cited; State v Maxwell, 42 Iowa 208; Senterfit" ... v. State 41 Tex. 186; Howell v. State, 10 Tex ... Ct. App. 298; Hall v. State, 31 Fla. 176 (12 So ... 449). We are of the opinion that the jury should have been ... required to designate in its verdict the specific offense of ... which it found the defendant guilty ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Austin
...designated, and can only be inferred. See State v. Turner, 19 Iowa, 144, and cases therein cited; State v. Maxwell, 42 Iowa, 208;Senterfit v. State, 41 Tex. 186;Howell v. State, 10 Tex. App. 298;Hall v. State, 31 Fla. 176, 12 South. 449. We are of the opinion that the jury should have been ......