Crawford v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cleveland Circuit Court. ZachaRiah T. Wood, Judge. The evidence does not make out a violation of the “blind tiger act.” The court erred in the giving and refusal of instructions and in qualifying appellant’s second one. There was no error in the court’s refusal to give appellant’s first requested instruction. 45 Ark. 173. Nor was the qualification of appellant’s second one error: 56 Ark. 444. Cider is alcoholic. 35 Fed. 570.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
Ed Crawford was accused before a justice of tRe peace “of running a blind tiger, by the clandestine sale or giving away of intoxicating liquors,” “such as alcohol, and ardent and vinous spirits, and malt liquors, and cider and wine,” “in his store or grocery house just east of the railroad crossing, south of the town of Rison about one-half mile, near the south corporate limits of the town,” in the county of Cleveland, and in the state of Arkansas. lie was convicted, and appealed to the Cleveland circuit court, and was convicted in that court, and fined in the sum of $100, and then appealed…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stelle v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Bradshaw v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Brownson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909