Case Name: Brum Webb v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1870
Citations: 32 Tex. 652
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brum Webb v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Brum Webb v. The State.
1—A recognizance wkicli neither names any offense nor sets forth a state of facts which constitute an offense is defective, and can not sustain an appeal. 3—“Illegal marking ” is not an offense known to the law of this State, there being no statement of what was marked.
Appeal from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. T. 0 Barden.
The case brought up by the appellant was a conviction for maliciously marking a cow, without the consent of the owner; but the recognizance given on his appeal from the District Court gave no further description of the offense than “ illegal marking.”
E. B. Turner, Attorney General, for the State, moves to dismiss the appeal.
No brief for the appellant.

Opinion:
Lindsay, J.
The recognizance in this case is defective, and the court can not entertain the appeal. There is neither the name of an offense recited in the recognizance, nor is there a state of facts set forth in it which constitutes an offense defined by the Criminal Code. The recognizance calls upon the defendant to answer to a charge of " illegal marking," without stating what was marked. " Illegal marking " of the property of another might be done without necessarily committing a penal offense. " Illegal marking " is not the name of any offense known to the penal law. If it were so, to mark another person's goods and chattels of any kind, or character, would subject a party to a penal prosecution, when he might have committed only a trespass. And every trespass is not a penal offense. The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.