Seelig v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. Sanders Circuit Judge. No offense is charged in the indictment. The mere fact that the door was open, or opened, is no crime. The indictment must set forth the charge in the words of the statute. Gantt’s Dig. Seo. 1618; 22 Am. Deo. p. 774-5; 38 Ark, 519. There is a total want of evidence to support the verdict.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. Sanders Circuit Judge. No offense is charged in the indictment. The mere fact that the door was open, or opened, is no crime. The indictment must set forth the charge in the words of the statute. Gantt’s Dig. Seo. 1618; 22 Am. Deo. p. 774-5; 38 Ark, 519. There is a total want of evidence to support the verdict. No proof that defendant was at the store, or that the door was open with his knowledge, or by his consent or directions, and he cannot he held criminally responsible for the acts of his kook-keeper. It was not necessary to prove a sale,…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Seelig was charged by affidavit before the Mayor of Helena with Sabbath-breaking, by keeping open the door of his store. He was convicted and fined there, and again on appeal to the Circuit Court:
He moved for a new trial for misdirection and because the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
Stansell, the City Marshal, swore that he saw a side door of the store open on a certain Sunday shortly before the prosecution was begun, and saw a boy pass out with a bundle. Another witness went to the store in company with Sexton, defendant’s hoolc-keeper, found the door closed but not locked; entered…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McKeown v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Lawhorn v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913