Case Name: George Davis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-01-27
Citations: 76 Tex. Crim. 115
Docket Number: No. 3398
Parties: George Davis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 115–115

Head Matter:
George Davis v. The State.
No. 3398.
Decided January 27, 1915.
1. —Wilfully Killing Dive Stock—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of wilfully and wantonly killing a cow, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Jury and Jury Daw—Practice on Appeal—Affidavit.
In the absence of an affidavit to the motion for new trial or other testimony that one of the jurors was disqualified, the question can not ibe considered on appeal.
Appeal from the County Court of Johnson. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Haynes.
Appeal from a conviction of wilfully and wantonly killing a cow; penalti', a fine of $5.
The evidence showed that the defendant, at night, got his pistol and went in the direction where some cattle were and shortly thereafter the report of a pistol shot was heard; that defendant remarked next morning that there was some beef out there; that the cow was found the next day lying down in the pasture, and was shot in the back and died shortly thereafter; that the stock law was in force in the county; and defendant had never notified the owners of the animal that it got into defendant’s field; that the animal was identified as the one alleged in the information, and had been placed in the pasture; that defendant practically admitted that he did the shooting, but denied it to the officers when questioned about it, and testified on trial that the' animal got in his field and he shot it for depredating on his crop.
Ho brief on file for appellant.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
Under article 1231, Penal Code, appellant was convicted for wilfully and wantonly killing a cow and was fined $5.
He raises only two questions. First, he claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We have carefully read it and we think it is sufficient.
His other ground is that he claims and alleges in his motion for new trial that one of the jurors was not a qualified juror in that he had not. resided in Johnson County six months previous to the time he served as a juror. This motion is in no way sworn to by anyone, nor is there any evidence whatever in the record tending to support it. It therefore presents no error.
The judgment is affirmed:
'Affirmed.