Beard v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Baxter Circuit Court. Hem, R. H, Powell Circuit Judge. The indictment is in almost the exact words of the statute, and the motion in arrest was properly overruled. Ads 1874-5 p., 129-180. The mortgage was duly filed and “ abstracted under the Act of 1877, and the evidence clearly shows that defendant both sold and bartered personal property upon which there was a duly recorded mortgage. The Act makes it a crime, and no intent to defraud need be proved.
1Opinion of the CourtCockbxll, C. J.
i. selling Mortgaged Pr°perty. Appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment in two counts, charging him in one, with selling, and in the other, with bartering, parts of a crop of cotton which he had previously mortgaged. The indictment contained all the averments necessary under the statute to a full description of the offence, and the proof was sufficient to every point. The court instructed the jury fairly and almost in the language of the statute.
The apellant asked two instructions, however, which the court refused. The first was upon the theory that if appellant planted the crop…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Potts v. NewellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- McGee v. FitzerTexas Supreme Court · 1873
- Headrick v. BrattainIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Houck v. BirminghamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Lawhorn v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- First State Bank v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Austin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.