Farmer v. State

Citations

• 21 Tex. Ct. App. 423
• 2 S.W. 767
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 164

Syllabus

<p>1. Malicious Mischief.—It is well settled law that if an animal be killed or injured by a person in the necessary protection of his property, after he has ineffectually used ordinary care to otherwise protect such property, such killing, or injury, will not be deemed either 11 wilful or wanton ” within the meaning of the Penal Code.</p> <p>3. Same—Pact Case.—The offense charged in this case was the wilful shooting and wounding of a horse. To authorize a conviction it was incumbent upon the State to show, not only that the defendant shot and wounded the animal, but that he did so with evil intent or legal malice, or without reasonable ground to believe his act lawful. See the opinion and the statement of the ease for evidence held insufficient to support the conviction, because insufficient to show that the act was wilful.</p> <p>3. Same.—Charge of the Court defined the term “wilful” as follows: “With evil intent, legal malice,” etc. Held, that the definition was too restricted.</p> <p>4. Same.—Charge of the Court, on a trial for shooting and wounding a horse, which made the guilt or innocence of the accused depend upon whether or not the accused used greater force than was necessary in the protection of his property, was erroneous, because that was not an issue involved, except in so far as it might be considered by the jury in determining whether or not the force used was wilfully used.</p> <p>5. Same.—The defense requested the trial court -to charge the jury, in substance, that if it reasonably appeared to the defendant that his horse was in danger of serious injury from the attack of the other one, and he inflicted the wound upon the attacking horse to protect his own horse from the threatened injury, the defendant should be acquitted. Held, that under the facts of this case, the special instruction embodied the law and should have been given.</p>