Pennewell v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The defendants, Pennewell, Lacey and Jamigan, were indicted for nonfeasance in office alleged to have been committed by failing and refusing to arrest or cause to be arrested certain persons who had riotously assembled in the city of Fort Smith for the purpose of lynching a prisoner confined in jail.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The defendants, Pennewell, Lacey and Jamigan, were indicted for nonfeasance in office alleged to have been committed by failing and refusing to arrest or cause to be arrested certain persons who had riotously assembled in the city of Fort Smith for the purpose of lynching a prisoner confined in jail. At the trial evidence was adduced by the State substantially as follows: The defendants, Pennewell, Lacey and Jamigan, were policemen in the city of Fort Smith and were on duty on the night of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The defendants insist that the court erred in giving instruction No. 1 to the jury, but we can not agree with their contention in this behalf. The instruction was not intended as a concrete application of the law to a particular state of facts, but the instruction embodies several sections of the statute relating to and defining the offense charged against the defendants. The several sections of the Digest contained in the instruction are parts of the same statute, and are so closely related to one another that each to some extent explains or controls the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Mitchell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904