State v. Prater
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from McDonald Oircnit Court'. — Hon. F. G. Johnston, Judge. The information is sufficient. It follows the language of the statute, section 1988, Revised Statutes 1899. State v. Pruett, 61 Mo. App. 156; 22 Cyc. 378, 379, 380. Defendant had no right to torture, maim, wound or kill the hogs in order to protect his growing crop, for the reason that the statute sets out the manner and means by which a person shall protect his crop. R. S. 1899, sec. 3295.
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
An information in two counts was filed against this defendant, of which the first charged that he “unlawfully, maliciously and cruelly did maim, wound and torture to death” three hogs belonging to J. N. Taylor, by worrying said three hogs with dogs and by striking and heating and wounding to death the said three hogs with some blunt instrument of an unknown description, from the effect of which striking, heating and wounding, the hogs died. In the second count the defendant is charged, in substantially the same words, with maiming, wounding and torturing. *350to-death six hogs, by striking and…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- State v. EllisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Trauerman v. LippincottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State v. . AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Branch v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- McKinzie v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. LarsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
- State v. BrotzerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Matthews v. McVayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1950
- State v. GadreaultSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
- State v. SillbaughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.