Barrentine v. State, 4048.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1937
• Docket Number: No. 4048.,4048.
• Parties: BARRENTINE et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

108 S.W.2d 784

BARRENTINE et al. v. STATE.

No. 4048.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

September 27, 1937.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County, First Division; Abner McGehee, Judge.

J. R. Barrentine and Henry Ives were convicted of attempted bribery of a police officer, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

Guy Fulk, of Little Rock, and Milton McLees, of North Little Rock, for appellants.

Jack Holt, Atty. Gen., and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

McHANEY, Justice.

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, section 2569, Crawford & Moses' Dig., takes up the whole subject anew, covering both the giving and offering to give a bribe, and making 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...