Crain v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge. The court had no jurisdiction. Appellant" was tried at a special term, and the record does not show— 1. That he was lawfully confined in jail, nor by what authority. 2. It does not show that this special term did not interfere with any other regular term of court to be held by the judge. 3. Nor that it was not held within twenty days of the adjournment of the regular term.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge. The court had no jurisdiction. Appellant" was tried at a special term, and the record does not show— 1. That he was lawfully confined in jail, nor by what authority. 2. It does not show that this special term did not interfere with any other regular term of court to be held by the judge. 3. Nor that it was not held within twenty days of the adjournment of the regular term. All this should appear of record. 2 Ark., 233. The special term could only try him for the offense for which he was confined—forgery, but he was tried…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
The appellant was indicted and convicted of uttering a forged instrument, at a special term of the court called by the circuit judge under Section 436, et sequitur, Mansf. Rev. St.
The matters assigned as error go to the regularity of the order, made by the judge in vacation, calling the special term, rather than the merits of the case. The forged instrument purported to be a school warrant, signed by two directors. The statute entrusts the management of school affairs to three directors, and it is their duty to issue orders on the county treasurer in payment of wages due teachers. The order…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Pool v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915