Moore v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Limestone. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast. The indictment was against the appellant and one Carver, which explains why the opinion speaks of the “ defendants.” They severed in their trials. Verdict of guilty was returned in the appellant’s case, with a term of two years in the penitentiary.
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
The objection to the indictment for want of a sufficient description of the .animal stolen is not well taken. “ The word beef, as used in the indictment, means .an animal of the cow species, denominated in the statute ‘ cattle,’ and not beef prepared for market or for use as meat. A beef, or one beef, is an expression frequently used to designate an animal fit for use as beef, instead of designating it as a steer, a heifer, or a cow.” Davis v. The State, 40 Texas, 134. And an indictment which charges theft of an “ox,” without using the statutory word cattle, is held to be good. Parchman v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Musquez v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Davis v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Burch v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Dietz v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Parchman v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.