Ritter v. State

Citations

• 33 Tex. 608

Syllabus

<p>1. On the trial of an indictment for malicious mischief by the tearing down and removal of a certain house, it was sufficient for the State to prove that the land on which the house stood did not belong to the defendant, but to the person alleged in the indictment to be the owner, and that the defendant entered upon-the land and committed the offense charged. If the defense relied on was that the land belonged to a different person, by whose authority the defendant removed-the house, that was matter to be established by the defendant.</p> <p>2. The fact that the house was built by the defendant, or,that his wife claimed an interest in the land on which it stood, could neither justify nor excuse him for removing the house against the will of the person who held both the title and possession. If the defendant claimed rights in the property his recourse should have been to the courts of the State, and not to his own “ strong hand. ”</p> <p>3. In an indictment for malicious mischief to real estate, by the removal of a house' therefrom, a description of the real estate as “ the lands and premises constituting and composing the homestead ” of the person alleged to be the owner is held, to he sufficient; and it was not necessary, it seems, that the indictment should charge that the removal was without the consent of the owner. (Paschal’s Digest, Article 2347.)</p>