Alexander v. State

• Decision Date: 05 May 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 208.)
• Citation: 211 S.W. 664
• Parties: ALEXANDER v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

211 S.W. 664

ALEXANDER v. STATE.

(No. 208.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 5, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, White County; J. M. Jackson, Judge.

Pete Alexander was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. N. Rachels, of Searcy, for appellant.

John D. Arbuckle, Atty. Gen., and Robert C. Knox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the White circuit court for the crime of grand larceny. His penalty was fixed at two years in the state penitentiary. From the verdict and judgment of conviction, he has prosecuted an appeal to this court.

It is insisted, first, that the evidence failed to sustain the allegation in the indictment that the money taken by appellant was lawful money of the United States; second, that the evidence failed to sustain the allegation in the indictment that appellant unlawfully and feloniously took the money; third, that the evidence failed to support the allegation in the indictment that the money taken was the property of T. L. Cross; fourth, that the instructions given by the court on the question of intent were erroneous; fifth, that the court erred in refusing to give the instructions requested by appellant on the question of intent.

The errors insisted upon are such errors as must be brought into the record by a proper bill of exceptions in order for this court to consider them on appeal. O'Neal v. Parker, 83 Ark. 133, 103 S. W. 165; Ark., La. & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 87 Ark. 50, 111 S. W. 1125; McKinley v. Broom, 94 Ark. 147, 126 S. W. 391; Norman v. Cammack, 105 Ark. 121, 150 S. W. 563; Ward v. State, 135 Ark. 259, 204 S. W. 971.

In the instant case, the errors complained of were not brought into the record by a proper bill of exceptions for the reason that the bill of exceptions was not authenticated by the trial judge. This was a felony case, and it was necessary for the trial judge to sign the bill of exceptions before it could be treated as a part of the record. Ward v. State, 135 Ark. 259, 204 S. W. 971.

There being no errors before this court for review, the judgment is affirmed.