Davis v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; W. A. Dickson, Judge; The court erred in overruling the demurrer and in giving instruction No. 1. Kirby’s Digest, § 1902. This statute does not include fruit trees.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; W. A. Dickson, Judge; The court erred in overruling the demurrer and in giving instruction No. 1. Kirby’s Digest, § 1902. This statute does not include fruit trees. In construing a statute inapt words should be disregarded and the intent gathered from the whole act read in connection with its title and evident purpose. 86 Ark. 518. Penal statutes are construed strictly and the general words should be restrained for the benefit of him against whom the penalty is inflicted. An offender must fall both within the words and the mischief to be remedied. See 6 Ark.…
1DissentMcCULLOCH, C. J.
It is not the contention of appellant’s counsel that there can be no conviction under this indictment for cutting down fruit trees, but their contention is that the statute under which the indictment was framed makes the market value of severed trees the test in fixing the value for the purpose of determining the degree of the offense. Cutting down fruit or ornamental trees is made an offense by this statute where they possess market value after being severed from the soil, but, according to the contention of counsel, the value of such trees as part of the soil is not to be considered. It is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Laser v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- State v. MaloneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Meadors v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917