Johnston v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; 1. The court abused its discretion in refusing the continuance and forcing defendant to trial. 107 Atl. 554; Fotmtain v. State, October Law Notes, pp. 123 and 107. 2. The court erred in refusing instruction No. 4 and the verdict is against the evidence. He was rushed into trial without a chance to procure his testimony. 1. The continuance was properly refused.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; 1. The court abused its discretion in refusing the continuance and forcing defendant to trial. 107 Atl. 554; Fotmtain v. State, October Law Notes, pp. 123 and 107. 2. The court erred in refusing instruction No. 4 and the verdict is against the evidence. He was rushed into trial without a chance to procure his testimony. 1. The continuance was properly refused. The motions and overruling were not brought into the record by bill of exceptions. 2. Instruction No. 4 is not error and the verdict is supported by the testimony.
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
The appellant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of selling liquor.
Counsel was appointed by the court to defend appellant.
At the trial three witnesses testified that they had bought whiskey from appellant within three years prior to the finding of the indictment. Appellant introduced testimony tending to impeach the character of two of these witnesses for truth and morality.
The appellant testified that he had not sold any liquor as charged in the indictment and testified to facts specifically rebutting the testimony of the witnesses for the State.
The court gave, among others,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Digiacomo v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- Hale v. Road Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Baggett v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922