Dove v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Lincoln Circuit Court. Hon. X. J. Pindall, Circuit Judge. Insists that the court erred in giving to the jury Sec. 135& Gantt’s Digest. The punishment for larceny of the animals named therein is not fixed by that section, but by the Act of 22nd March, 1881. See Acts 1881, pp. 144, 145. The admission. of the evidence that appellant stole the-bridle is too slight an error to reverse the judgment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Lincoln Circuit Court. Hon. X. J. Pindall, Circuit Judge. Insists that the court erred in giving to the jury Sec. 135& Gantt’s Digest. The punishment for larceny of the animals named therein is not fixed by that section, but by the Act of 22nd March, 1881. See Acts 1881, pp. 144, 145. The admission. of the evidence that appellant stole the-bridle is too slight an error to reverse the judgment. There is no other error, unless, possibly, on the ground of surprise in the evidence of the father. The court should have-granted a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtEnglish, C. J.
The. appellant, Dove, was indicted m the .Circuit Court of Lincoln county, for stealing a bay mare, of the value of $100, the property of J. M. Martin. The jury found him guilty, and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. A new trial was refused him, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict.
It was not made ground of the motion for a new trial that the court committed any error in its instructions to the jury.
There is nothing in the first ground assigned that the verdict was contrary to law. It was responsive to the allegations of the indictment, in…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Alford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
- State v. HowardMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Ware v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.