Defendant, Kermit Johnston, was indicted for the crime of malicious injury to a vehicle as defined by section 714.11, Code, 1958. He pleaded not guilty, was tried, found *337 guilty, sentenсed to jail for 60 days and has appealed to us.
The indictment charges that defendant maliciously and feloniously injured a vehicle, to wit a tractor belonging to Raymond Bridgewater, by cutting its parts, in violation of Code section 714.11. The pertinent part of this statute provides, “Injury to vehicle * * *. If any person * * * maliciously and feloniously remove, break, unfasten, or injure any part of any vehicle, he shall be imprisoned”, etc.
I. Under the first of two errors assigned by defеndant it is argued the tractor in question was not a vehicle. This calls for a review of the evidence upon this point.
Raymond Bridgewater’s son testifies that оn December 30, 1958, about 3 p.m., he saw defendant, cutting on his father’s tractor with an acetylene torch, a rear wheel was cut and the top of the hood was gone, they were lying on the ground two or three feet from the tractor, when asked for an explanation defendant said he bought the tractor from one John Hansen and exhibited a paper showing the purchase. On cross-examination the witness says the tractor had no battery in it, the coils were old and no good, the tractor would not run, had been disabled for several years and was an antique.
Raymond Bridgewater testifies the tractor was рretty well cut up the next morning, the head and radiator were missing, the night of the 30th defendant called upon the witness, said he had a bill of sale for the tractor but did not have it with him and was sorry for what had happened, the tractor had not been used or started and had been out in the weather, uncovered, sincе 1936, the witness was saving the tractor as an antique.
The sheriff says defendant claimed to him he had a bill of sale for the tractor from John Hansen of Conway but hаd lost it, he admitted he cut the tractor with an acetylene torch, the witness was unable to find a John Hansen at Conway.
Defendant testifies he had never been on the Bridgewater farm, never saw the tractor in question, the tractor parts he had in his possession came from his grandfather’s place at Grаvity.
It is clear this tractor at the-time in question was not in condition to be moved by its own power. But this would be equally true of any wagon or buggy. They are not even *338 dеsigned to be moved by their own power and no repairs would enable them to be so moved. Yet it cannot be denied they are vehicles. Code sеction 714.11 is not limited in its application to motor vehicles — it applies to any vehicle. Indeed the statute is violated by maliciously and feloniously removing or injuring any pant of any vehicle. There is clear evidence defendant, with such intent, removed and injured parts of this tractor. We think the tractor was a vehicle in thе sense in which the term is used in section 714.11.
The word “vehicle” is frequently defined as that in or on which any person or thing is or may be carried from one place to another. It is of course a broader term than “motor vehicle.” Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Ed.; United States v. One 1936 Model Ford,
The Moffitt case, supra, holds a hay grinder mounted on wheels, with no independent motive power, wаs a vehicle. The Waddey case, supra, is a like decision as to a homemade wagon pulled by a rope tied to the front end.
Quite in point is State of Missouri v. Ridinger,
The opinion holds (page 624 of 42 A. L. R.2d), “We have concluded that the mere fаcts, strongly urged upon us by de *339 fendant, that the bus had no current state license, that there was no intention of the owner thereof to further use it as a bus and that it wаs being used as a source of spare parts to be placed in other motor vehicles as occasion therefor might arise, did not destroy the bus as a ‘motor vehicle’ or convert it into a mere object of public plundering and stripping, and beyond the pale of the law’s protectiоn.”
It is apparent the Ridinger decision that the bus was a motor vehicle goes further than our holding here that the tractor was a vehicle.
Also in point is this from Halstead v. State,
See also State v. Tacey,
II. The second assigned error is the admission in rebuttal of certain testimony of the witness George G. Brennan.
As part of the State’s main case the sheriff testified in part, as previously stated, defendant told him he had a bill of sale for the tractоr from John Hansen but had lost it. As a witness in his own behalf defendant said he never had any discussion with the sheriff about a bill of sale. In rebuttal the State was permitted to show by Brennan that he was present at the conversation between defendant and the sheriff and defendant said he had a bill of sale for this tractor from some other fellow but could not find it.
We might perhaps dispose of this assigned error by saying there was no objection to the two questions which elicited the above testimony in rebuttal. However, defendant did object, as *340 not proper rebuttal, to somewhat similar questions previously asked Brennan and the objections were overruled. Defendant’s counsel may have considered this a sufficient indication of the court’s view on the point under consideration. We are therefore not disposed to base our holding on defendant’s failure to renew his objection to the above testimony. We think its admission in rebuttal was not error.
Brennan’s evidence was clearly rebuttal. It negatived testimony given by defendant. It is true it might have been offered by the State as part of its mаin case. But this did not render it inadmissible in rebuttal. “It many times occurs that testimony used in rebuttal might have been used by the State as direct testimony in the first instance; yet, if in faсt it was not so used, but in reality it does rebut some of the matters testified to by the defendant or his witnesses, it should be classed as rebutting testimony.” State v. Graham,
State v. Yetzer,
See also State v. Nowells,
The fact Brennan’s name was not endorsed on the indictment did not render inadmissible the testimony given by him in rebuttal. Names of witnesses who testify in rebuttal need not appear on the indictment. State v. McCumber,