Sullivan v. State
| Decision Date | 15 September 1922 |
| Docket Number | A-3881. |
| Citation | 209 P. 181,21 Okla.Crim. 410 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the provisions of sections 137 and 138, Rev. Laws 1910, section 2, chapter 192, Session Laws of 1917 penalizing the owners of live stock for permitting them to run at large, the law contemplates that there must be a purpose on the part of the owner to permit his stock to run at large, or such culpable negligence on the part of the owner as would indicate an indifference as to whether they were restrained or not.
Where through some untoward circumstance, or through no fault of the owner, live stock escapes from a well-kept, adequate inclosure, the penal provisions of the statute do not apply.
Appeal from County Court, Love County; B. W. Jones, Judge.
C. F Sullivan was convicted of not restraining his domestic animals, and he appeals. Reversed.
J. H Hays, of Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and E. L. Fulton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
C. F. Sullivan, plaintiff in error, was on the 20th day of September, 1920, found guilty of the offense of not restraining his domestic animals, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and costs. From the judgment on this verdict, he appeals.
The evidence in this case shows that C. F. Sullivan was the owner of a large pasture, comprising more than a section of land in Love county, Okl., in which he kept a large number of cattle; that Sullivan did not reside at or near the pasture, but made his home in Ardmore; that one Looney Stewart was employed by Sullivan to ride after cattle and look after the pasture fences; that it was his duty at all times to keep the fences in repair, so that the cattle could not get out of the inclosure; that the pasture furnished good grazing and an abundant water supply for the cattle there kept; that the fences were in good shape at the time of the alleged offense, but that there were a number of gates, which could not be kept up because of the carelessness of people passing through; that these gates had been put in for the benefit of persons driving across the pasture, so that they would not tear down the fences to get through, as had been done prior to their being put in; that on the 15th of October, 1919, a number of cattle got through an open gate in one side of the pasture, and got into the pasture of W. F. Banks, adjoining the Sullivan pasture, and that Banks made complaint to Sullivan by letter, and to Stewart, also, about this trespass; that Sullivan came to see Banks about the matter, but Banks was not at home; that subsequently Banks signed the complaint upon which this prosecution was instituted.
This prosecution was instituted under the provisions of section 137, R. L. 1910, and section 138, R. L. 1910, section 2, chapter 192, Session Laws of 1917. The sections are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial