State v. Warren
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bastrop. This was an indictment, under Article 49S of the Digest, charging the defendant, in the language of the statute, with having cut and carried away certain timber “ upon land not his own, but which was” “ the “property of one Thomas Reid; without first having the “ consent of said Reid.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bastrop. This was an indictment, under Article 49S of the Digest, charging the defendant, in the language of the statute, with having cut and carried away certain timber “ upon land not his own, but which was” “ the “property of one Thomas Reid; without first having the “ consent of said Reid.” A motion to quash for the want of certainty in the indictment ■ and, particularly, because it did not describe the land by metes and bounds, or by the name of uhe grantee, or any other matter of identity, was sustained.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
In describing the offence in the indictment, the words of the statute are strictly pursued. And it is well settled, that, in an indictment for an offence created by statute, it is, in general, sufficient to follow the words of the statute in describing the offence. There are certain exceptions to this rule; but the present ease does not come within them. The rule, and the exceptions, have been so frequently considered in former decisions, as to render their repetition here unnecessary. A reference to the cases will suffice. (The State v. West, 10 Tex. R. 555, and cases there cited; Welsh v.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- William Cameron & Co. v. TrueheartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- State v. ThompsonTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Brewer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878