Case Name: J. A. Partridge v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-06-25
Citations: 71 Tex. Crim. 302
Docket Number: No. 2580
Parties: J. A. Partridge v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
J. A. Partridge v. The State.
No. 2580.
Decided June 25, 1913.
1.—Catching Fish—Information.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully catching fish upon the enclosed lands of another, etc., the complaint and information followed the statute, the same was sufficient. Following Berry v. State, recently decided.
3.—Same—Statement of Facts.
Where the statement of facts was filed too late in the court below, the same can not be considered on appeal. Following Durham v. State, recently decided.
Appeal from the County Court of Throckmorton. Tried below before the Hon. T. J. Wright.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully catching fish; penalty, a fine of $10.
Leaving out formal averments, the affidavit alleged that defendant did then and there unlawfully enter upon enclosed premises of W. E. Jarmon without the consent of the owner, the said W. E. Jarmon being the owner and in charge of said enclosure, and said enclosure containing less than 2000 acres, and catch fish from a pond and stream and bvmuddying and draining, and by means of nets and seines, catch and to take fish from a pond and pool, without the consent of the owner of such pond and pool, against the peace and dignity of the State.
Ho brief on file for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
Appellant was fined $10 under a complaint and information charging him with unlawfully catching fish upon the inclosed land of another without the owner's consent, the inclosure containing less than 2000 acres.
The complaint and information follow the statute (P. CL, art. 1255) completely and are sufficient against appellant's motion to quash. Berry v. State, 156 S. W. Rep., 627.
There is in the record what purports to be a statement of facts, but it can not be considered because filed too late. The court at which he was tried adjourned October 18, 1912, and what purports to be the statement of facts was not filed until November 11, 1912, twenty-four days after adjournment. Durham v. State, 155 S. W. Rep., 222.
In the absence of a statement of facts no other question is raised which we can consider. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.