Benson v. State

Decision Date25 March 1912
Citation145 S.W. 883,103 Ark. 87
PartiesBENSON v. STATE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; C. T. Cotham, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Appellant pro se.

Hal L Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant for appellee.

OPINION

FRAUENTHAL, J.

The defendant, Walter Benson, was indicted for the crime of robbery, charged with having taken by force and intimidation from the person of one W. F. Jennings $ 6 in money and a watch. Upon his trial he was convicted of said crime, and seeks by this appeal to obtain a reversal of the judgment of conviction principally upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient or of such a reliable nature as to warrant the verdict returned, and because of error alleged to have been committed by the trial court in the admission of certain testimony. The testimony on the part of the State tended to establish the following facts: W. F. Jennings was a laborer who had resided in the city of Hot Springs for a number of years. On the afternoon and evening of October 22, 1910, he visited several saloons in that city and indulged in taking a number of drinks of intoxicating liquors until he was under their influence. Between 11 and 12 o'clock of that night, he was at a saloon known as "The Last Chance," when the defendant asked him to take a hack ride. He had never seen the defendant before, but agreed to go with him, and both then entered a hack which was driven by one Ben Oaks. At this time Jennings had been drinking to such an extent that he was unable to remember all that happened, but his mental condition was strong and clear enough for him to realize and appreciate what was going on, and he was able afterwards to give such a definite description of the defendant as to identify him. The parties were driven for several blocks in said city when Jennings desired to leave the hack. He directed the driver to stop the hack, and then opened the hack door, and both he and the defendant stepped to the pavement, when the defendant made Jennings throw up his hands and went through his pockets, taking from him his money and watch. Thereupon, defendant either threw or knocked Jennings down, and then rushed to the hack as it was slowly driven away, leaving Jennings lying on the pavement. Jennings then arose, and went to his home, and telephoned to the police headquarters of that city, telling them that he had been robbed and the circumstances thereof, and giving to the officer a description of defendant. Later in the night the police officers arrested the defendant and searched him, but no money or watch was found upon his person. On the following morning, Jennings identified the defendant at police headquarters as the person who had robbed him.

The hack driver testified on behalf of defendant and stated that on the night of October 22 he had driven defendant to The Last Chance saloon and later he and Jennings had gotten into his hack and directed him to drive them to some designated place. On the way he was directed to stop, and both Jennings and the defendant got out of the hack and were quarreling; Jennings accusing defendant of having taken his watch and defendant claiming that he had left it at the saloon, if he had one. The defendant then slapped Jennings, and, as he was driving slowly away, defendant caught the hack and got on the seat with him.

The defendant testified that, after getting in the hack, Jennings desired to get out and refused to go to a resort agreed upon and an altercation between them ensued; that Jennings drew a knife as if to do him injury, and that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Carter v. Younger
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1916
    ...v. Turner, 83 Ark. 331, 103 S.W. 1135. See also, Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Schmaltz, 66 Ark. 588, 53 S.W. 49; Benson v. State, 103 Ark. 87, 145 S.W. 883; LeGrand v. State, 88 Ark. V. Appellants offered to prove by several witnesses certain declarations of Younger made during, and......
  • Schuman v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1913
    ...of testing the credibility of the witness. 44 Ark. 122; 63 S.W. (Tex.), 312; 98 Am. St. Rep. 932, 933; 100 Ark. 321, 324; Id. 199, 202; 103 Ark. 87. 2. withdrawal of the request to recall the witness Collier, and the admonition of the court to the jury were sufficient to eliminate any error......
  • Carter v. Younger
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1916
    ...103 S. W. 1135. See, also, Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Schmaltz, 66 Ark. 588, 53 S. W. 49, 74 Am. St. Rep. 112; Benson v. State, 103 Ark. 87, 145 S. W. 883; Le Grand v. State, 88 Ark. 135, 113 S. W. V. Appellants offered to prove by several witnesses certain declarations of Younger......
  • Oak Leaf Mill Company v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1912
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT