Case ID: sw_184/html/0508-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARROLL v. STATE.
    (No. 3990.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 15, 1916.
    _Rehearing Denied April 5, 1916.)
    1. Cbiminal Law &wkey;>1099(7) — Appeal — Statement oe Facts — Time fob Filins.
    A statement of facts in the county court must be filed within 20 days after the adjournment of court, and must be preceded by an order entered of record for that purpose, and hence a statement filed 26 days or more after adjournment would not be considered, notwithstanding an order entered of record allowing 80 days after adjournment.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2876, 2878-2880; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1099(7).]
    2. Indictment and Infokmation <&wkey;110(3)— Language of Statute — Sufficiency.
    An indictment under the statute prohibiting the catching of fish, except by hook and line, etc., and nets under certain circumstances, the meshes of which shall be three inches or more, except as to a trammel net, in which they must be four inches, alleging those matters in the terms of the statute and showing that defendant caught fish in nets prohibited thereby, was sufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 291-294; Dec. Dig. &wkey;110(3).]
    3. Fish <&wkey;S — Protection—Jurisdiction of State.
    Under the statute prohibiting the catching of fish, except by hook and line, etc., and prohibiting certain nets, and in the absence of any such limitation in the statute or in any act of Congress, the jurisdiction of the state extended to the catching of fish in the Red river, the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fish, Cent. Dig. § 16; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;8.]
    Appeal from Grayson County Court; Dayton B. Steed, Judge.
    J. R. Carroll was convicted of catching fish in violation of the game law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. Randell, of Denison, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of catching fish in violation of the game law; his punishment being assessed at a fine of 825.

There are no bills of exception or statement of facts contained in the record. There is what purports to be a statement of facts, but it was filed more than 20 days after the adjournment of court. Under quite a number of decisions in Texas a statement of facts in the county court must be filed within 20 days after the adjournment of court, and this must be preceded by an order entered of record for that purpose. There is an order entered in this record allowing 30 days, and the statement of facts was filed 26 or 27 days after court adjourned, but that document should have been filed before the expiration of the 20 days under an unbroken line of authorities. Therefore questions incidental to the statement of facts cannot be considered.

Motion to quash as well as motion in arrest of judgment were urged against the pleading. We are of opinion that the trial court did not err in overruling these matters. The statute under which appellant was indicted prohibits the catching of fish except by hook and line, trot line, etc., and nets under certain circumstances, but the meshes of the nets must be above a specified size, that is, three inches or above, unless it is a trammel net, in which instance it must be four inches. The information and complaint sufficiently allege these matters in the terms of the statute, and show that appellant caught fish in nets prohibited by statute.

There is another question presented, to wit; That, appellant having caught the fish in Red river, it was beyond the jurisdiction of Texas. We do not agree with appellant on this question. Red river is a boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma, and, while it might be under the federal jurisdiction as to some matters, it still is within the jurisdiction of Texas as to a violation of her game laws. We are cited to no authority that would limit Texas to go beyond the edge of the water on the south bank of the river in enforcing its law. There is none in the Texas statute that we have been able to find that would justify that conclusion, nor has any been called to our attention in the acts of Congress. In some respects fresh-water streams which may be navigable can be or may be under the jurisdiction of Congress, but that does not apply to this statute. We think the jurisdiction of Texas fully reached and covered the territory in which this fishing occurred.

Finding no reversible error in the judgment, it is affirmed.