Case ID: tex_30/html/0514-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Caldwell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Gill v. The State.
    The act of 4th March, 1863, (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2417, 2418,) was not repealed by the act upon the same subject of 13th November, 1866, vol. 20, p. 224. Both acts being on the same subject, stand, so far as the latter does not supply the former. {Ante, p. 512.)
    Appeal from Bastrop. The case was tried before Hon. John Ireland, one of the district judges.
    The defendant was indicted under the act of 4th March, 1863, to regulate the sale of beef cattle, &c., for that he butchered beef for the market, &c., without keeping and' recording lists of marks and brands, as by that act required. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2417, 2418.) By a motion to quash, and one in arrest of judgment after conviction, the defendant raised the question as to whether the act had been repealed by the 3d section of the act of 1866, (vol. 20, p. 224; ante,p. 512.) This was the only question decided in that case.
    
      George W. Jones, for appellant,
    insisted that the act of 13th November, 1866, repealed the act regulating beef cattle. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1618.)
    No brief for the state has been furnished the Reporter.
    
   Caldwell, J.

The defendant was indicted at the December term of the district court for 1866, under article 2417 of Paschal’s Digest. The alleged offense was a “ failure to return lists of the marks and brands, stating in said lists from whom purchased, of all cattle slaughtered,” &c., verified by affidavit as therein required. Trial and conviction at the June term, 1867.

It is insisted by the defendant that the act of November, 1866, on the same subject, creates a new and different offense, (Pamph. Laws, p. 224, sec. 3, 1866,) and repeals the act under which he was indicted, without substituting any penalty, which would entitle him to a discharge.

We think not. Both acts are on the same subject, and have the same object in view. The repealing statute only supplies more stringent rules of registration of marks and brands, and affixed a greater penalty for its violation.' There is no error, and the judgment is

Affirmed.