Case Name: CLINE v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-02-02
Citations: 227 S.W. 668
Docket Number: No. 6096
Parties: CLINE v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 227
Pages: 668–668

Head Matter:
CLINE v. State.
(No. 6096.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 2, 1921.)
1. Animals <&wkey;57 — Proof of adoption of stock law essential to conviction.
In a prosecution for violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 1241, by permitting stock to run at large in county in which the stock law had been adopted, failure to prove the adoption of the law within the territory wherein the offense is charged to have been committed is fatal to conviction.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>304(l8)— Judicial knowledge not taken of elections putting local option laws in force.
. Courts do not take judicial knowledge of the holding and results of elections of putting in force local option laws in a given territory.
Appeal from Smith County Court; W. R. Castle, Judge.
Bill Cline was convicted of permitting stock to run at large in violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 1241, and he appeals.
Reversed.
David Wuntch, of Tyler, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
Appellant was convicted of violation of article 1241 of the Penal Code, .wherein it is made an offense to willfully turn out or to willfully refuse to keep up stock prohibited by law from running at large in any county or subdivision of any county in which the stock law has been adopted.
It is charged in the complaint and information that an election had been held in which the law prohibiting certain stock, Including hogs, from running at large had been adopted. The facts alleged bring the election within the provisions of the statute on the subject, namely, Vernon's Sayles' Texas Civil Statutes, vol. 4, c. 5, tit. 124.
We find in the statement of facts, however, no proof supporting these allegations. The law being a local one, it is an essential predicate to conviction for its violation to not only allege, but to prove, its adoption within the territory .wherein the offense is charged to have been committed. Hill v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 79, 124 S. W. 940. The courts do not take judicial knowledge of the holding and results of elections putting in force local option laws in a given territory. Prather v. State, 12 Tex. App. 401; Stewart v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 393, 33 S. W. 1081.
The absence of proof showing that the law prohibiting hogs from running at large was in force renders it necessary to order a reversal of the judgment.