Case Name: RAYBURN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-10-03
Citations: 197 S.W. 714
Docket Number: No. 4513
Parties: RAYBURN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 197
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
RAYBURN v. STATE.
(No. 4513.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 3, 1917.)
Animáis <&wkey;36 — Sanitary Regulations — Criminal Prosecutions — Enjoyment.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, art. 1284c, authorizing the live stock sanitary commission to prescribe methods for adopting and otherwise treating and disinfecting premises or live stock; article 1284f, providing a penalty for violating any of the provisions of the statute or any of the rules and regulations of the commission; and article 1284g, prescribing a penalty for failing or refusing to dip or otherwise treat live stock as directed by the commission — a complaint and information for failing to vaccinate hogs for hog cholera _ was insufficient, where it contained no allegation that any such rule had been made or promulgated by the commission.
Appeal from Taylor County Court; E. M. Overshiner, Judge.
J. M. Rayburn was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.
Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Scarborough & Davidson, of Abilene, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
This prosecution is for violation of the live stock sanitary laws of the state. See Acts 33d Leg. Reg. Sess. c. 169; Vernon's P. C. vol. 1, arts. 1284a to 1284h.
There are several counts in the indictment, all charging failure on the part of appellant to vaccinate his hogs for hog cholera. The act does not in terms command him to do so, but attempts to authorize the live stock sanitary commission "to prescribe methods for dipping or otherwise treating or disinfecting such premises and live stock." Article 1284c. A penalty is provided in article 1284f "for violating any of the provisions of the act or any of the rules and regulations prescribed by the live stock sanitary commission"; and in article 1284g is prescribed the penalty for one "who shall fail or refuse to dip or otherwise treat such live stock at such time and in such manner as directed by the live stock sanitary commission."
Various questions as to the validity of this statute were raised, but, being unnecessary to the disposition of the case, will not be discussed, especially in view of the fact that the Thirty-Eifth Legislature (chapter 60) enacted a new law on the subject. As the law did not in terms require appellant to vaccinate his hogs, his prosecution could be predicated only upon violation of some rule of the live stock sanitary commission; and, the complaint and information containing no allegation that any such rule had been made or promulgated, the prosecution must fail for want of sufficient pleadings. This court in Wallace v. State, 44 Tex. Or. R. 300, 70 S. W. 756, 100 Am. St. Rep. 855, Id., 69 S. W. 506, held a similar complaint bad, and in so doing, we think, followed a well-established rule of law.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed, because of the insufficiency of the pleadings.