
    The State v. Peter Garrett.
    'Defendant was indicted for the theft of “ certain neat cattle, to-wit: one beef of the value of fifteen dollars, the property of” a person named. Held, that the property was described with sufficient certainty, and it 'was error to quash the indictment on exceptions for uncertainty in this respect.
    Appeal from Lavaca. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Burkhart.
    The head note indicates the description of the property given in the indictment, and which, on exceptions of the defendant, was held insufficient by the court below. The State appealed. . .
    
      Wm. Alexander, Attorney General, for the State,
    cited Penal Code, article 766 (Paschal’s Digest, article 2410), as amended in 1866, on page 200 of the acts of that year.
    Ho brief for the appellee.
   Ogden, J.

The indictment in this case describes the property ’ "alleged t'o'have boen stolen, with sufficient certainty.

The offense is set forth in plain and intelligible words • and the indictment describes with sufficient certainty what character of "neat cattle 'was stolen by defendant. And the court erred in quashing the indictment. The judgment is therefore reversed and 'the cause remanded.

-Reversed and remanded.  