State v. Arnold
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. F. P. Wood.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The Attorney-General argues in this case that the word “unlawfully” may take the place in the indictment of the statutory word “knowingly,” as used in Article 2351. To use the word unlawfully is to assume a conclusion of law, which can only be done by the act having been done knowingly. The pleader should state the facts from which the court can derive legal conclusions.
It may be very true that the act of cutting timber on another man’s land, to be unlawful, must be knowingly done; but we think, nevertheless, a party would be liable in damages for cutting timber upon the land of another,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. StrawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1971
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Chance v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
- Chance v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978