Brooks v. State
| Decision Date | 04 October 1909 |
| Citation | 121 S.W. 740,91 Ark. 505 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; reversed as to Stewart, affirmed as to Brooks.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Appellants were convicted on separate indictments in the Sebastian Circuit Court of the crime of perjury. The indictments charged in apt language that Hallie Stewart was on trial before the police court of the city of Fort Smith for the offense of using a room for immoral purposes, i. e., with having used the room with one Wm. Brent for purposes of prostitution, and that the police court had jurisdiction. It was alleged that the perjury consisted in appellants swearing falsely that Grant Brooks was not at the room on the night when it was alleged that Hattie Stewart and Wm. Brent used the same for immoral purposes; that Grant Brooks did not see Wm. Brent and Hallie Stewart together in the room; that Grant Brooks did not knock Hallie Stewart down at her room on that night, and that Grant Brooks did not have a difficulty with Wm. Brent at her room that night.
The testimony of L. F. Fishback, the police judge, shows that appellants were witnesses in the case against Hallie Stewart pending before him, that they were duly sworn, and testified to the facts as alleged in the indictments. He further testified that Hallie Stewart had a wound on the bridge of her nose just between the eyes, that her eyes were swollen and discolored.
Eliza Brent testified: I am the wife of Wm. Brent. On Monday morning, March 20, 1909, I heard that my husband and Grant Brooks had had some kind of a difficulty on the Saturday night before. I went to Schulte's stable, and got one of the men to show me Grant Brooks. Brooks told me the trouble between him and my husband was over a crap game. I insisted that it was not over a crap game, but over Hallie Stewart and he said that if I wanted him to tell me the truth he would do so; that my husband was at Hallie Stewart's house on Saturday night, and she sent for him; when he got there she had on a gauze shirt and a pair of drawers, and Wm Brent was just putting on his clothes.
Wm Brent testified as follows: I was at Hallie Stewart's room on Saturday night, March 19, 1909. Grant Brooks came into the room where we were. At the time Grant Brooks came into the room Hallie Stewart was putting on her clothes. Brooks knocked Hallie Stewart down and took a swing at me but did not hit me.
The appellants were each witnesses in their own behalf. Hallie Stewart testified: I know Wm. Brent and Grant Brooks. I was arrested on the 21st of March, 1909, upon the charge of having used a room for immoral purposes with Wm. Brent. I was charged with using it on the night of March 19. I was tried in police court on March 23, and testified in my own behalf. I said, in the police court, that Wm. Brent was not at my room on the night we were charged with having used the room for the purpose of prostitution; that Grant Brooks did not knock me down on that night; that Grant Brooks and Wm. Brent did not have a difficulty at my room on that night over me. Wm. Brent was not at my room on the night in question, nor was Grant Brooks. Grant Brooks did not see us in my room together; they did not have any difficulty there over me, and Grant Brooks did not knock me down that night. I wore smoked glasses on the day of my trial, and had been wearing them a few days before. I had fallen over some material that was being used in building the new cracker factory, and received the cut where this scar is (indicating). The cut was on my nose and nearly between the eyes. My eyes were discolored from my fall, and not from a blow given me by Grant Brooks nor any one else.
Grant Brooks testified: I was summoned as a witness, was sworn and testified in the police court of Fort Smith on the 23d of March, 1909, in a cause against Hallie Stewart, charged with using a room for the purpose of prostitution. I said I was not at Hallie Stewart's room on the night she was charged with using it for the purpose of prostitution with Wm. Brent that I did not see Hallie Stewart and Wm. Brent in her room together; that I did not knock her down that night in her room; that I did not have a difficulty with Wm. Brent over her that night in her room; that I had not been in her room for two months before the time I was testifying; that I had had no trouble with Wm. Brent for about four years.
The court read to the jury section 1968, Kirby's Digest, which provides: "Perjury is the wilful and corrupt swearing, testifying or affirming falsely to any material matter in any cause, matter or proceedings, before any court, tribunal, body corporate or other officer having by law authority to administer oaths;" and gave the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borland v. State
...v. State, 86 Ark. 160. Instruction 6 exact copy of instruction held erroneously refused in Chowning v. State, 91 Ark. 503. See also 91 Ark. 505; 94 75; 103 Ark. 33; 102 Ark. 511; 36 L. R. A. 465. As to 7, Thorpe v. State, 99 Ark. 188. J. S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. H......
-
Allen v. State
...court having fully covered the matter called for in appellant's proposed instructions 3 and 4, they were properly refused. 88 Ark. 117; 91 Ark. 505. 2. arrest of appellant without a warrant was lawful, the evidence being sufficient to show that the offense was comitted in the presence of th......
- Chowning v. State
-
Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Little
...enactment, and that transaction must necessarily be proved to make out his case, there can be no recovery." See, also, Brooks v. Harris, 91 Ark. 505, 121 S. W. 740; Wood v. Stewart, 81 Ark. 48, 98 S. W. 711. Appellees insist that they are not seeking to enforce any right growing out of the ......