McGee v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Among other things, the defendant offered in evidence the testimony of the county attorney to the effect that after the local election on the tick eradication law, the defendant consulted him as to the dipping required, and the county attorney advised him that he could disinfect the cattle in his own way, and that if he destroyed the ticks, he would, not have to dip the cattle, etc.
1Opinion of the Court
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully violating the tick eradication law and assessed the lowest fine.
The first and only law applicable herein passed by our Legislature on the subject of the eradication of ticks so far as we can find was the Act of April 8, 1913, page 353 et seq. This Act is quite crude, at least in some of its provisions, and some of them are quite difficult to understand, if indeed the language thereof is such that they can be understood in some particulars at all.
The present Legislature, however, by an Act approved March 6, 1917, not yet published,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Armstrong v. Traylor and ElmoreTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Roberson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1901
- Ex Parte ThompkinsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mulkey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Barron v. MarusakCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
- Gandy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Walker v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Barron v. MarusakCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.