Barrentine & Ives v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 4048 |
| Citation | 108 S.W.2d 784,194 Ark. 501 |
| Parties | BARRENTINE AND IVES v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Abner McGehee, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Gus Fulk and Milton McLees, for appellants.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellants were convicted of attempted bribery of a police officer in the municipal court of the city of Little Rock. On appeal to the circuit court, they were again convicted, fined $ 100 and sentenced to 30 days in jail, on the theory that the charge was a misdemeanor under the common law. The only question to be decided on this appeal, as stated by counsel for appellants, is: "Whether or not the common law offense of attempting to bribe a public officer has been abrogated by statutory law of the state of Arkansas."
Appellants contend that, since at common law both bribery and attempt to bribe were misdemeanors, no distinction being made in the grade of the offense, our statute, § 2569, Crawford & Moses' Digest, takes up the whole subject anew, covering both the giving and offering to give a bribe, makes the offense a felony, and must be held to be in derogation of the common law. If so it is urged, no offense was charged against them, as there was no indictment or information under the statute. Said section provides: "If any persons shall * * * promise or offer to give * * * any money * * * to any member of the General Assembly * * * or to any officer of the state, or person holding any place of profit or trust, under any law of the state * * * with intent," etc. We think a careful reading of this statute shows that it was not intended to repeal the common law offense, but merely supplementary or cumulative thereto, and that the prosecutor might proceed under either assuming, of course, that a police officer is a "person holding any place of profit or trust, under any law of the state."
It has long been the rule in this state that "A statute will not be taken in derogation of the common law unless the act itself shows such to have been the intention and object of the legislature." Gray v. Nations, 1 Ark. 557; State v. Pierson, 44 Ark. 265; Wilks v. Slaughter, 49 Ark. 235, 4 S.W 766; Powell v. State, 133 Ark. 477, 203 S.W. 25; State v. One Ford Automobile, 151 Ark. 29 235 S.W. 378. A careful reading of the act fails to convince that such was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State, CR
... ... v. Elcon, Inc., 248 Ark. 958, 457 S.W.2d 509 (1970). In Barrentine and Ives v. State, 194 Ark. 501, 108 S.W.2d 784 (1937) we said: ... It has long been the rule in this state that 'A statute will ... ...
-
Rowland v. State
... ... 219, 177 S.W. 932; Sims v ... State, 131 Ark. 185, 198 S.W. 883; Payne v ... State, 165 Ark. 229, 263 S.W. 780; and ... Barrentine v. State, 194 Ark. 501, 108 ... S.W.2d 784. The record here is voluminous; [ 1 ] but in the ... excellent brief for the appellant all the ... ...
-
Rowland v. State
... ... Bunch, 119 Ark. 219, 177 S.W. 932; Sims v. State, 131 Ark. 185, 198 S. W. 883; Payne v. State, 165 Ark. 229, 263 S.W. 780; and Barrentine & Ives v. State, 194 Ark. 501, 108 S.W.2d 784. The record here is voluminous; 1 but in the excellent brief for the appellant all the assignments are ... ...
-
Nelson v. Loan
... ... , with the minimum amount of damages being equal to the difference between resident and out-of-state tuition for four years [385 S.W.3d 765]of medical school, but not less than $25,000. Ark.Code Ann ... v. Elcon, Inc., 248 Ark. 958, 457 S.W.2d 509 (1970); Barrentine v. State, 194 Ark. 501, 108 S.W.2d 784 (1937); Gray v. Nations, 1 Ark. 557 (1839). Therefore, our ... ...