Beattie v. State

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RIDDICK., J.,
• Citation: Beattie v. State, 77 Ark. 247, 95 S. W. 163 (Ark. 1905)
• Decision Date: 16 December 1905
• Parties: BEATTIE v. STATE

95 S.W. 163

77 Ark. 247

BEATTIE v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 16, 1905

Appeal from Sharp Circuit Court; JOHN W. MEEKS, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

George Beattie, a citizen and resident of Missouri, was indicted for herding, grazing and permitting his cattle to run at large in the Northern District of Sharp County.

On the trial there was evidence for the State which tended to show that the defendant had been present while his cattle were running at large in the Northern District of Sharp County, in this State, salting and looking after them; that he admitted to several of the State's witnesses that he had put his cattle on the range and intended to keep them there, which evidence tended strongly to show that defendant was guilty of the crime charged. On the other hand, defendant denied positively that he had ever herded or permitted his cattle to run at large in this State, or that he had made statements to the contrary. He testified that he resided in Missouri near the line of this State, that "he never came down into the Northern District of Sharp County for any purpose connected with the cattle, except to drive them out; that when he drove them out of Arkansas he carried them home, and put them either in the lot or pasture, and salted them. He would then turn them out in the lane in Missouri, whence they could go further into Missouri, or into Arkansas.

The court, among other instructions, gave an instruction numbered three as follows:

"You are instructed that, so long as he (meaning defendant) remains in Missouri, he cannot be punished for this offense but, if you should find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that at any time within a year before this information was filed and in the Northern District of Sharp County the cattle of defendant were being herded or grazed or permitted to run at large and he, while in Arkansas procured, participated in or assented to the same, then it would be your duty to find him guilty."

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and assessed his punishment at a fine of one hundred dollars. Judgment was rendered thereon, and the defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sam H Davidson, for appellant.

Robert L. Rodgers, Attorney General, for appellee.

OPINION

RIDDICK., J., (after stating facts.)

This is an appeal from a judgment assessing a fine against a non-resident for herding, grazing, and permitting his cattle to run at large in the Northern District of Sharp County. The evidence was amply sufficient to support the judgment, and we see nothing in the charge of the court prejudicial to the defendant, unless it be in the third instruction given by the court, which is set out in the statement of facts. That instruction told the jury that if the cattle of the defendant were being herded or grazed or permitted to run at large in this State, and he, while in Arkansas, procured, participated in or assented to the same," then it would be the duty of the jury to convict him. The only doubt about this instruction is presented by the word "assented" therein. If the cattle of defendant, without being driven or induced by any act on his part, had come into this State, and were grazing here of their own accord, we do not think that the mere fact that he acquiesced or made no objection thereto would make out a case against him, under the statute. Beattie v. State, 73 Ark. 428, 84 S.W. 477.

But taking all the instructions together, we are of the opinion that the word "assented" was used by the court in the sense of "consented." In other words, we think that the meaning of this part of the...