Barnes v. State
| Decision Date | 18 November 1905 |
| Citation | 91 S.W. 10,77 Ark. 124 |
| Parties | BARNES v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Independence Circuit Court; FREDERICK D. FULKERSON Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
C. F Greenlee, for appellants.
The burden was upon the State to show affirmatively by the proof that it was a gambling transaction--that actual delivery of the cotton was not contemplated. The intention of Matheny could not bind the defendants. 67 Ark. 172-181, and cases cited.
Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.
The jury were instructed to acquit if they believed it was defendants' intention actually to deliver the cotton. There was evidence to support their verdict to the contrary.
W. H. Barnes and Gus Martin were indicted for gambling in cotton futures. The indictment is as follows:
"The grand jury of Independence County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas, accuse W. H. Barnes, Gus Martin and J. W. Callahan of the crime of gambling, committed as follows, viz.: The said W. H. Barnes and Gus Martin and J. W. Callahan, on the 15th day of September, 1904, in the county and State aforesaid, did unlawfully buy and sell and otherwise deal in what is known as futures in cotton, with a view to profit; said buying and selling and otherwise dealing in the aforesaid cotton futures was not then and there a contract entered into in good faith for the future delivery of said cotton with the actual intention of fulfilment, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas."
They demurred to the indictment. The demurrer was sustained as to Callahan, and overruled as to Barnes and Martin, who were convicted, and each was fined $ 250; and they appealed.
Appellants contend that the evidence was not sufficient to convict. It tended to prove that they sold to Marton Matheny the futures on fifty bales of cotton. He paid $ 50 as margin. About four or five hours after the purchase, cotton declining in price he paid $ 50 more as margin. He was called on again for another $ 50 margin, but he refused "to put up," and forfeited that which was paid. At the time of the sale nothing was said about the delivery of the cotton. Matheny testified that a receipt was given, and that "it just stated that I had bought so many bales of cotton on a margin of one dollar." From this the jury might have inferred that they were speculating upon the fluctuations in the market price...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huff v. State
...delivery of the articles. Fortenbury v. State, 47 Ark. 188, 1 S.W. 58; Phelps v. Holderness, 56 Ark. 300, 19 S.W. 921, and Barnes v. State, 77 Ark. 124, 91 S.W. 10. It be noted that the present statute is essentially different. It makes the transaction a gambling one when in fact it is not,......
-
William W. Cohen & Co. v. Austin
... ... The law is so well ... settled on that subject that discussion is entirely ... unnecessary. Fortenbury v. State, 47 Ark ... 188, 1 S.W. 58; Phelps v. Holderness, 56 ... Ark. 300, 19 S.W. 921; Barnes v. State, 77 ... Ark. 124, 91 S.W. 10; Clews v. Jamieson, ... ...
-
Clarke v. Daniel
... ... inhabitants, residing within three miles of the public ... schoolhouse in the town of Mammoth Spring, in Fulton County, ... in this State, presented a petition to the Fulton County ... Court, asking that an order be made prohibiting the sale or ... giving away of vinous, spirituous or ... ...