
    The State v. Thomas Dunham.
    Indictment, alleging time and place, charged that the defendant did -willfully and unlawfully take up and trade off to certain named persons one estray bay gelding, of a brand stated, and of the value of thirty dollars, without having first complied with the laws regulating estrays. Hold., that the indictment sufficiently charges an offense; but that it would have 'been better to have followed more closely the language of the statute. '(Paschal’s Digest, article 2441.)
    Appeal from Lavaca. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Burkhart.
    The indictment alleged that the defendant traded off the animal “to Morgan Judd and Williams.” One ground of the motion to -quash was that the names of these persons were not stated with sufficient particularity. The other ground was that the offense was not charged in plain and intelligible words.
    The motion being sustained the State appealed.
    
      Wm. Alexander, Attorney General, for the State.
    Ho brief for the appellee.
   ■Oseen, J.

The defendant below was indicted for willfully taking up and trading off, to Morgan Judd and Williams, one «stray bay gelding, of a particular brand and value. Possibly the indictment would have been less objectionable, had it followed more -closely the language of the statute; but we think it sufficiently definite in charging the offense prohibited by the statute, and that the court erred in sustaining a motion to quash. The judgmerq is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  