State v. Snyder
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. The indictment is in the identical words of the statute, which is sufficient in a statutory offense. Sec. 5324, Gantt's Dig,; State v. Witt, 39 Axle., 216, and cases cited. The indictment does not set forth the special matter of the whole fact with such certainty that the offense may judicially appear; it is not enough to charge a mere conclusion of law. 1 Wharton Grim.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. The indictment is in the identical words of the statute, which is sufficient in a statutory offense. Sec. 5324, Gantt's Dig,; State v. Witt, 39 Axle., 216, and cases cited. The indictment does not set forth the special matter of the whole fact with such certainty that the offense may judicially appear; it is not enough to charge a mere conclusion of law. 1 Wharton Grim. Laxo, sec. 285; Stale v~ Graham, 38 Axle., 519 ; Gantt's Dig., sec. 5322.
1Opinion of the CourtEnglish, C. J.
I-Ierod Snyder was indicted in the circuit court of Franklin county for violating the road law. The indictment charged that, “the said Herod Snyder, on the eleventh day of March, 1882, in the county of Franklin,, etc., being then subject to road duty in road district No., thirty-two, (32), in said count}7, etc., and having had three days actual notice and warning to appear and work on the-public road in said district, unlawfully did fail to pay for the full time he was so lawfully warned to work, and did then and there unlawfully fail to attend by himself or substitute to the acceptance of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bodenhamer v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Kreider v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Stancliff v. United StatesCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1904
- State v. HookerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904