Case Name: The State v. Pendleton Rector
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1871
Citations: 34 Tex. 565
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Pendleton Rector.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
The State v. Pendleton Rector.
1. The Criminal Code (Paschal’s Digest, article 2344) makes it a penal offense to “ will fully kill, maim, etc., any horse, etc., of another, with intent to injure the owner thereof. ” The essential ingredient of this offense is the intent to injure the owner of the animal; and an indictment is had which fails to aver this malicious intent to injure the owner.
2. The succeeding article of the code (Paschal’s Digest, article 2345) provides for the punishment of any person who shall “ willfully and wantonly kill, maim, etc., any dumb animal, such as is enumerated in the preceding article.” Willful and wanton cruelty to a dumb animal is the essential ingredient of this offense; and a good indictment under this article must aver that the injury to the animal was inflicted both “ willfully and wantonly.” '
Appeal from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Henry Maney.
The material charge in the indictment was, that the defendant, “ one certain cow, branded s t, of the value of ten dollars, of the goods and chattels of Mary Stanfield, then and there being, willfully, wantonly and maliciously did shoot and kill, against the peace and dignity of the State.” The defendant’s motion to quash was sustained by the court below and the State appealed.
There were four of these cases against the appellee, in each of which he was charged with shooting different animals of Mrs. Stanfield, from which it appears that he had a “ mission thereunto.” But the indictments in all of the cases were defective in the same respect, and the opinion in the present case was applied to them all.
Win. Alexander, Attorney General, for the State.
John Ireland, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Evans, P. J.
The defendant in this case was indicted for willfully, unlawfully and maliciously shooting and killing a certain cow, the property of Mary Stanfield.
The indictment is too uncertain to support a conviction and judgment.
It does not contain averments essential to constitute an offense, either under article 2344, Paschal's Digest, which makes it penal to " willfully kill, maim, etc., any animal of another with intent to injure the owner thereof.or under article 2345, Paschal's Digest, which makes it penal to " wilfully and wantonly kill, maim, wound, poison or cruelly and unmercifully beat and abuse any dumb animal."
The essential ingredient of the offense described in the first named article, 2344, is the intent to injure the owner of the animal injured; and an indictment which does not contain an averment of this malicious intent to injure the owner is bad.
The essential ingredient of the offense described in article 2345, is the willful and wanton cruelty to a dumb animal; and an indictment under this article, to be good, must contain an averment that the injury to the animal was inflicted " willfully and wantonly
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Affirmed.