Rider v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; James Cochran, Judge; 1. The information charges no crime. There is no such offense as “failing to dip cattle.” Acts' 1907, § 5; and Rule 7 of Board Control.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; James Cochran, Judge; 1. The information charges no crime. There is no such offense as “failing to dip cattle.” Acts' 1907, § 5; and Rule 7 of Board Control. Criminal Statutes are strictly construed and no case is to be brought by construction within a statute, unless it is completely within its words. 38 Ark. 519; 53 N. Y. 511; 5 Denio, 76; 3 Humph. 483; 49 Ark. 488. 2. The district is void for want of definite description. 122 Ark. 491. It is also void for patent ambiguity in description of the boundary. 30 Ark. 657; 40 Id. 237; 41 Id.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is a prosecution for alleged violation of a rule promulgated by the Board of Control of the Agricultural Station concerning cattle tick eradication, and the case is ruled by the recent (opinion of this court in Davis v. State, 126 Ark. 260, except as to the sufficiency of the information filed by the prosecuting attorney instituting the prosecution.
It is contended that the information is not sufficient because it merely charges 'the defendant with having refused to “dip certain cattle,” without alleging specifically that he refused to comply with the regulation by bringing his cattle,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cazort v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Howard v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Palmer v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Lee v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Parker v. NicholasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931