Case ID: tex-crim_33/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SIMKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. H. Hunt v. The State.
    
      No. 262.
    
    
      Decided February 10.
    
    Butchering Animals for Market — Construction of Statute. — Under provisions of article 754 of the Penal Code, a butcher is guilty who kills for market and afterward purchases, without a written transfer or hill of sale, from a stranger who claims to he the owner, the unmarked and unbranded animal so killed by him. The fact that the killing precedes the purchase, where what is done is hut a single transaction between the parties, is immaterial.
    Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before Hon. T. F. Nash, County Judge.
    Appellant was indicted for butchering for market two unmarked and unbranded calves, the same not having been raised by him, and he not having a written transfer or bill of sale for the same.
    At the trial he was convicted, the punishment being assessed at a fine of $50. There was no evidence that appellant ever had a bill of sale or written transfer of the animals. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
    
      Stillwell H. Bussed, for appellant.
    
      B. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   SIMKINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of butchering unmarked and unbranded animals, under article 754of the Penal Code, and his punishment assessed at $50, from which he appeals. The evidence shows that appellant is a butcher; that on the night of March 9, 1893, he slaughtered two unmarked yearlings for a stranger, who said he had driven them from Lancaster, but, in fact, had stolen them four miles southeast of Oak Cliff; that, after slaughtering them, he bought them at a low price and sold them in Dallas. Article 754, Penal Code, declares, that if a butcher kills any unmarked or unbranded animal for market, or shall purchase and kill any animal without a written transfer from the vendor, he shall be fined, etc. The evidence shows a violation of the statute, not only in the slaughter of the animals, but in the purchase of the same. • The fact that the killing preceded the purchase was immaterial, as it was all done in one transaction, and between the same parties.

The charge of the court was sufficient and correct. Judgment affirmed. ■

Affirmed. t

Judges all present and concurring.