Case Name: W. T. Thornton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-03-12
Citations: 70 Tex. Crim. 45
Docket Number: No. 2337
Parties: W. T. Thornton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 45–47

Head Matter:
W. T. Thornton v. The State.
No. 2337.
Decided March 12, 1913.
Rehearing granted April 16, 1913.
1. —Malicious Mischief—Knowingly Turning Stock on Inclosed Lands of Another—Recognizance—Reinstatement.
Where the appeal was dismissed on account of a defective recognizance, but a sufficient recognizance was thereafter filed, the appeal is reinstated.
2. —Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence.
Where the uncontroverted evidence showed that defendant was in possession of the land upon which he is charged of knowingly turning stock without the consent of the owner, by reason of a rent contract from the latter, and that neither the land nor the crops thereon were injured by turning horses thereon, and that he had a right to control the premises for all reasonable purposes, a conviction could not be sustained. Following Coggins v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 109, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Haskell. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Smith-
Appeal from a conviction of knowingly turning stock on the inclosed lands of another without bis consent; penalty, a fine of $10.
The opinion states the case.
W. H. Murchison, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of evidence: Brumley v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 609; Zallner v. State, 15 id., 23; Hooks v. State, 25 id., 601; Elliott v. State, 45 S. W. Rep., 711; McCuen v. State, 68 S. W. Rep., 180, and cases cited in opinion.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Cited Woodyard v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 516; Hooks v. State, 25 id., 601; Becker v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 92.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal for want of a sufficient recognizance. An inspection of the recognizance shows that the motion is well taken and must be sustained. The recognizance recites that appellant stands charged with .the offense of knowingly turning stock on the inclosed lands of another without his consent,1 but it does not show that appellant had been convicted or the amount of the judgment of conviction as the statute requires. Appellant may remedy this by filing, within the time allowed by law, a sufficient recognizance and by this means reinstate his appeal; but, as the matter is presented, the motion must be sustained. Wherefore, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
Dismissed.