Case Name: McGEE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-11-07
Citations: 198 S.W. 302
Docket Number: No. 4672
Parties: McGEE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 198
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
McGEE v. STATE.
(No. 4672.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 7, 1917.)
Animals' <®=34 — Health oe Cattle — Dipping-Notice.
Where defendant was not, in writing, notified to dip his cattle, horses, and mules to eradicate fever ticks until after the filing of the complaint and information, he cannot be convicted on account of failure.
Appeal from Young County Court; W. P. Stinson, Judge.
W. C. McGee was convicted for failing to have his cattle dipped as required for eradication of ticks, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
See, also, 194 S. W. 951.
Johnson & Johnson, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for failing to have his cattle dipped under certain circumstances requiring such dipping for the eradication of ticks.
The complaint and information charges that this occurred on or about the 6th of July, 1916. There was no written notice given him prior to the filing of the complaint and information, and if any written notice has been served upon him at any time, the evidence of it is found in the testimony of Dr. Julian. His testimony is that he never did inspect defendant's cattle or premises; never was at his premises before June, 1917. "I don't know whether defendant's cattle ever had any fever ticks. I gave him a notice to dip his cattle, -horses, and mules on that day, June 8, 1917." If this is sufficient evidence to show he had a notice, it shows that it was given nearly a year after the complaint and information were filed.
There are other interesting questions in the case, but we deem it unnecessary, in view of this decision, to discuss them.
The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.