Skiles v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; D. II. Golemcm, Judge; Act 657 of 1919 is not in effect, and the penal provisions thereof could not be violated for two reasons: first, the fence required to be built before the taking effect of the act has never been built; second, no election was ever held as provided by sec. 44 of the act. The burden was on the State to allege and prove that the fence had been built.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; D. II. Golemcm, Judge; Act 657 of 1919 is not in effect, and the penal provisions thereof could not be violated for two reasons: first, the fence required to be built before the taking effect of the act has never been built; second, no election was ever held as provided by sec. 44 of the act. The burden was on the State to allege and prove that the fence had been built. A proviso in the enacting clause of a statute must be negatived in the indictment, and snob, negative allegation sustained by proof. 77 Ark. 139. Must also be construed in connection with…
1Opinion
OPINION ON REHEARING.
McCulloch, C. J.
Counsel for appellant contend now, as they did on the original hearing here, that the judgment is unsupported by sufficient testimony, in that the State failed to prove that the stock law enacted by the Legislature had been put into operation 'by vote of the people as prescribed by that statute. We overlooked that contention and failed to discuss it in the original opinion.
Our conclusion on this subject is that the adoption of the terms of the statute by an election of the people is a matter of which the court should take notice judicially. It is a law in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Cazort v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Strickland v. Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900