180 THEFT AND REMOVAL OF ANIMALS. 



"horse" was used in its generic sense, it would be presumed 

 that the legislature had not intended to modify this interpre- 

 tation but had inserted the word "mare" possibly for more 

 definiteness, so that where one was indicted for the theft of 

 a "horse," proof that the animal was a mare was no vari- 

 ance.^"^ And the word also includes a gelding.^"* And 

 there are similar decisions in Illinois,^"* Missouri,^"^ Tennes- 

 see,"« South Carolina,i«»^ Utah,io« ^nd Wyoming.io^ But 

 where the statute requires the nature, character and sex of the 

 animal to be stated, it was held in Georgia that the word 

 "horse" was not sufficiently specific.^^" In Alabama, where 

 the statute uses the words "horse, mare, gelding," etc., it was 

 said : "When a generic term employed in a statute is suc- 

 ceeded by one more definite in its meaning, it is necessary 

 in an indictment predicated upon such statute that the latter 

 term should be used" ; and it was accordingly held that a geld- 

 ing could not be shown, under an indictment for stealing a 

 "horse." ^^^ So in Texas, where the statute was similar, the 

 court said that "horse" was "used as synonymous with the 

 word 'stallion' or at least was not in that connection intended 

 to include 'gelding, mare or colt.' " "^ But under the Re- 

 vised Penal Code "horse" is used in a generic sense and in- 

 cludes a gelding"* and a mare.^^* 



"° Peo. V. Pico, 62 Cal. 50. 



"' Peo. V. Monteith, 7Z Cal. 7. 



^■^ Baldwin v. Peo., 2 111. (1 Scam.) 304. 



"° State V. Donnegan, 34 Mo. 67. 



'^ Wiley V. State, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 362. That a gelding cannot be 

 shown, see Turley v. State, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 323. 



'" State V. Dunnavant, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 9. 



"* Peo. V. Butler, 2 Utah 504; Peo. v. Sensabaugh, Ibid. 473. 



"° Fein v. Ty., i Wyo. 376. 



""Taylor v. State, 44 Ga. 263; Brown v. 3tate, 86 id. 633. 



"'State V. Plunket, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 11. And see Shubrick v. State, 2 

 S. C. 21, 23. 



™ Banks V. State, 28 Tex. 644. And see Jordt v. State, 31 id. 571; Gibbs 

 V. State, 34 id. 134; Gholston v. State, 33 id. 342. 



"° See Valesco v. State, 9 Tex. App. 76. 



"' Davis V. State, 23 Tex. App. 210. 



