Herman v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland, Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; 1. The instructions of the court were proper and covered every instruction requested by the appellant. 2. There was no error in excluding or admitting evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland, Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; 1. The instructions of the court were proper and covered every instruction requested by the appellant. 2. There was no error in excluding or admitting evidence. The depositions taken in the examining trial were admissible. 29 Ark. 22; 47 Id. 185; 60 Id. 400, Evidence as to the general character of a place of business, the kind and character of patrons and the presence of drunken people is always admitted in cases like this. 8 Ruling Case Law, 205; 24 Am. Rep. 69; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 108; 23 Ark. 282. 3. There was no irregularity in the…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
W. C. Herman and Louis Asbahr were each indicted for the crime of selling intoxicating liquors or being interested in the sale thereof under Act number 30 of the Acts of the Legislature of 1915. (See Acts of 1915, p. 98)
The defendant in each case was convicted and from the judgment of conviction has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court. The material facts in the two eases are the same and one opinion will serve in both eases.
Prior to the 1st of January, 1916, Louis Asbahr and W. C. Herman operated a saloon at the corner of Central and Spring Streets in the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bowman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- York v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- McNamara v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Commonwealth v. KennedyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Commonwealth v. WallaceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.