Edland v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; Frank Smith, Judge; Act \o. r85 of the Acts 1905 is invalid because it is ambiguous, and its construction is meaningless. 36 Ark. 331; 47 Ark. 404; 59 Ark. 237. Invalid also because it is violative of art. 5, § 22, Const. Under this constitutional provision the act of 1905 neither amends the section nor repeals the proviso. Section 1 of the act is to be looked to to see if it does either.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; Frank Smith, Judge; Act \o. r85 of the Acts 1905 is invalid because it is ambiguous, and its construction is meaningless. 36 Ark. 331; 47 Ark. 404; 59 Ark. 237. Invalid also because it is violative of art. 5, § 22, Const. Under this constitutional provision the act of 1905 neither amends the section nor repeals the proviso. Section 1 of the act is to be looked to to see if it does either. What follows it is entirely disconnected from it, separately paragraphed and numbered as a separate section. It cannot, therefore, be viewed as a…
1Opinion of the CourtBattre, J.
On the 6th day of November, 1908, appellants, J. E. Edland and J. B. Ullathorne, were arrested and tried before a justice of the peace of Big Lake Township, in Mississippi County, Arkansas, for having ■ hunted within the Chickasawba District of that county, in violation of. section 3599 of Kirby’s Digest, they being non-residents. They appealed to the circuit court of Chickasawba District, and were again convicted; and they then appealed to this court.
They concede that, if section 3599 of Kirby’s Digest is in force in Mississippi County, they were properly convicted.
Section 3599 of Kirby’s…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mondschein v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Hempstead County v. HarknessSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Henderson v. DearingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
3Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. TrulockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Arkansas Railroad Commission v. Stout Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2005
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1987
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1989