Case Name: The State v. J. W. Ivy
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1871
Citations: 33 Tex. 646
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. J. W. Ivy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
The State v. J. W. Ivy.
1. In an indictment for unlawful, use of an estray it was sufficient to describe the animal as “ one horse of the value of one hundred dollars, the property of some person whose name is to the grand jurors unknown, and which horse was then an estray.”
2. When an indictment had become so mutilated as to be unintelligible, the district attorney had the right to substitute another in the manner prescribed by Article 2873, Paschal's Digest. It was error to refuse to allow such substitution, when application was duly made by the district attorney.
3. An appeal being taken by the State from the quashal of an indictment for a misdemeanor, the district attorney moved that the defendant be required to enter into recognizance as required by Article 3187, Paschal’s Digest; but the court below overruled the motion, and no recognizance was taken. Held, that the district court erred in overruling the motion.
Appeal from Kaufman. Tried below before the Hen. John G. Scott.
The facts are indicated in the opinion and the head notes.
J. G. Boyle, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Donley Henry, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Walker, J.
The indictment in this case was good under our statute, and would probably have been held good at common law, certainty to a common intent in the description of the estray animal being all that could be required. We must hold that it was error in the district court to quash it.
By article 2873, Paschal's Digest, the district attorney had a right, as therein directed, to substitute an indictment for one which, though not lost or mislaid, had become so mutilated as to be unintelligible, and the judgment of the court in overruling the motion of the district attorney, to substitute such mutilated indictment, was also erroneous.
It was also error in the district court to refuse to require the defendant to enter into recognizance to appear before the district court to answer the accusation made against him. (Art. 3187, Paschal's Digest.)
For these errors the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.