State v. Murphy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Van Burén Circuit Court. Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. The indictment is in the words of the statute. Gantt’s Dig., Seo. 1512; 33 Ark., 140 ; 40 Ark, 361. The indictment was based upon the Act of March 21st, 1881, and fails to follow the language. It is clearly insufficient.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Van Burén Circuit Court. Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. The indictment is in the words of the statute. Gantt’s Dig., Seo. 1512; 33 Ark., 140 ; 40 Ark, 361. The indictment was based upon the Act of March 21st, 1881, and fails to follow the language. It is clearly insufficient. Acts of 1881, p. 135; State v. Moser, 33 Ark, 140. It is not good under Sec. 1512, Gantt’s Digest, as it does not contain the word “unlawfully,” which is as necessary in misdemeanors as “ maliciously ” is in felonies. 34 Ark, 550 ; 40 Ark, 361.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The indictment in this case charges that “ J. M. Murphy, on the first day of October, 1882, in the County, &c., then and there, being at the private residence of one W. L. Niday, did make use of profane and insulting language in the presence of, about, towards and in the hearing of Mrs. Rachel Lucinda Niday, wife of the said W. L. Ni-day, which language in its common acceptation was calculated to cause a breach of the peace, against the peace and dignity of the State. &c.”
The court below sustained a general demurrer to it and discharged the defendant.
1 indictoffens”®in? done!11 y ’ The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McCaskill v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Cabe v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- State v. HenrySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1895