Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Territory of Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 1896No. Criminal No. 102PublishedCited by 10 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima. Joseph D. Bethune, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHawkins, J.

Defendant was indicted for the larceny of a steer, the property of the Empire Land and Cattle Company. He pleaded not guilty. On the trial of the cause, the testimony of witness Turner, the foreman of the cattle company, disclosed that the animal stolen was a spayed cow. The statute (Pen. Code, par. 765) makes the “felonious taking of . . . cow, steer, bull, calf, ... or any neat or horned cattle, grand ' larceny, without regard to the value. ’ ’ A “steer” is defined to be a “young male of the ox bind, or common ox; especially a castrated taurine male, from two to four years old.” Webster.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jordt v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Swindel v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1869
  3. State v. McDonaldMontana Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. RussellOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. State v. SinghCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  3. Miller v. TerriTory of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1905
  4. McElhaney Cattle Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  5. State v. FreeneyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API