Case Name: ALSOBROOK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-11-26
Citations: 216 S.W. 167
Docket Number: No. 5482
Parties: ALSOBROOK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 216
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
(86 Tex. Cr. R. 271.)
ALSOBROOK v. STATE.
(No. 5482.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 26, 1919.)
1. Animals <3=557 — Indictment for permitting TO BUN AT LARGE INSUFFICIENT.
A complaint and information, charging the offense of willfully permitting hogs to run ■ at large- in violation of Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, art. 1241, are insufficient, where they do not allege a legal petition for an election by the commissioners’ court for the election, the order by the county judge declaring the result of the election as provided by law, and a proclamation by publication or otherwise for 30 days of the result of the election.
2. Animals <⅞=-50(2) — Sufficiency op petition POR STOCK LAW ELECTION.
Únder, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 7211, it is imperative that a petition for a stock law election in a subdivision of a county shall particularly describe such subdivision and designate the boundaries thereof.
3. Animals <@=>50(2) — Sufficiency of petition FOR STOCK LAW ELECTION.
A petition for a stock 'law election, describing a subdivision of a county as" “beginning at a point on the. west boundary line of Franklin county; the N. W. corner of general stock law district; thence east with the N. B. line general stock law to where same connects with,” etc., was insufficient under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann; Civ: St. 1914, art. 7211.
Appeal from Franklin County Court, W. R. Irby, Judge.
R. G. Alsobrook was convicted Of willfully permitting hogs to run at large, and he ap peals. Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Wilkinson & Davidson, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Franklin county, Tex., of willfully permitting hogs to run at large in alleged violation of the terms of article 1241, Vernon's Penal Oo.de, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $5. The trial was before the court, a jury having been waived.
Appellant made a motion to quash the complaint and information, the overruling of which is assigned as error. We believe, under the decisions heretofore rendered by this court, the motion was well taken. It was held in the case of King v. State, 74 S. W. 773, that the indictment should allege: (1) A legal petition for the election; (2) an order by the commissioners' court for the election; (3) the order by the county judge, declaring the result of the election as provided by law; and (4) a proclamation, by publication or otherwise, for 30 days, of the result of the election. See, also, Hill v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 79, 124 S. W. 940. None of these allegations appear in the pleadings in the instant •case.
We are further of the opinion that the petition for the election, which is in the record, does not measure up to the requirements of our statute, and that all proceedings had thereunder were invalid. By the terms of article 7211, Vernon's Civil Statutes, it is made imperative that a petition for a stock law election in a subdivision of a county "shall particularly describe such subdivision, and designate the boundaries thereof." This provision has been held mandatory both by this court and our Supreme Court. Ex parte Gulledge, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 122 S. W. 21 ; Railway Co. v. Tolbert, 100 Tex. 483, 101 S. W. 206.
Referring to the petition for the election in the instant case, we note that in describing said alleged subdivision, its beginning call is as follows:
"Beginning at a point on the west boundary line of Franklin county; the N. W. corner of general stock law district; thence east with the N. B. line general stock law to where same connects with," etc.
We know of no possible construction which could make of this a legally sufficient call for the beginning or a boundary line for a subdivision so attempted to be set off' and described under the terms of said, statute. We have no recognized or known quantity of land or amount of territory which, may be classified or described as "General Stock Daw district," nor is the same any natural object or political line known to this court; and hence it must follow that such beginning call, and any subsequent boundary call referring to a general stock law district, would, in our view, be insufficient. We hold the election without any legal petition, which would vitiate each step in the proceeding.
The judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
(gx^jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes