Case ID: tex-crim_99/html/0206-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

G. M. Rains v. The State.
    No. 8138.
    Delivered February 11, 1925.
    No motion for rebearing filed.
    Violating Tick Law — Evidence Insufficient to Sustain Conviction.
    Tbe averment in tbe information that tbe appellant was tbe owner and caretaker of tbe cattle, is not sustained by tbe evidence, and tbe judgment is reversed and tbe cause remanded.
    
      . Appeal from the County Court of Cherokee County. Tried below before the Hon. J. J. Bolton, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for violating the tick law; penalty, a fine of twenty-five dollars.
    
      M. L. Lefter, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for violating the tick law; punishment fixed at a fine of twenty-five dollars.

The only testimony which has been observed by us is to the effect that the cattle in question were the property of the wife of the appellant and that she and her son were their caretakers.

The averment in the information that the appellant was the owner and caretaker of the cattle is not sustained by the evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.