Henderson v. Town of Murfreesboro
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; In view of the distance appellant lived from the place of trial and the proof of his illness submitted with the motion, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance, and to force the case into trial in the appellant’s absence. • 42 Ark. 273; 38 Ark. 512. Intent is an essential element of this offense.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; In view of the distance appellant lived from the place of trial and the proof of his illness submitted with the motion, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance, and to force the case into trial in the appellant’s absence. • 42 Ark. 273; 38 Ark. 512. Intent is an essential element of this offense. An intent to eject, rather than to assault, was a valid defense, and no one could know so well as the appellant, what his intent was in taking hold of the prosecuting witness. 2 Ruling 'Case Law, § 37, p-. 559. And the court…
1DissentWood, J.
The appellant contends' that the court erred in trying him in his absence, and this is one of the grounds of his motion for a new trial.
Our statute provides, “If the indictment is for a misdemeanor a trial may be had in the absence of the defendant.” Kirby’s Digest, § 2340. In Griffin v. State, 37 Ark. 437-442, construing this statute, we said: “No doubt the court has the discretion to permit the trial in his absence; but, as a practice, it is not to be commended. ’ ’ This was said ¡concerning a case that was. tried in the absence of a defendant who was ¡charged with the crime of Sabbath…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Owen v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Cox v. City of JonesboroSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Bridges v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Martin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1883
- Griffin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881