Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 26 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 13 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; John E Tatum, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
No brief for appellant.
J S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter, Wm. T Hammock and Darden Moose, Assistants, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the circuit court of Sebastian County, Greenwood District, under § 6160 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, for the crime of being interested in the sale of intoxicating liquor, and was adjudged to serve a term of one year in the State Penitentiary as punishment therefor. From the judgment of conviction he has prosecuted an appeal to this court, but has not filed a brief in support of his assignments of error.
He assigned as error, in his motion for a new trial, that the verdict was contrary to both the law and the evidence. There is substantial testimony in the record tending to show that, pursuant to an agreement, appellant met Walter Milam on the night of March 24, 1923, at the pool hall in the town of Hartford, and conducted him to the Rock Island depot, where he met a man by the name of Aydolette; that Milam paid Aydolette $ 2.50 for a quart of whiskey, whereupon appellant accompanied him to a nearby coal-shed and pointed the whiskey out to him; that Milam took the whiskey and delivered it to the officers, who produced a part of it at the trial for the inspection of the jury. The law is that "where the intermediary between the purchaser and the seller is a necessary factor, without whose assistance the sale of liquor could not have been consummated, he is interested in the sense of the law, whether he has pecuniary interest or not." Condit v. State, 130 Ark. 341, 197 S.W. 579; Ellis v. State, 133 Ark. 540, 202 S.W. 702.
He also assigned as error that the jury was influenced in arriving at its verdict by outside testimony, but there is nothing in the record to this effect.
He also assigned as error that the court permitted witness White to testify that, the day before the arrest, he had followed appellant's brother, whom he suspected of having moonshine whiskey, and who was accompanied by appellant, to a certain mountain and through the woods. No objection was made to the introduction of this testimony, so this court cannot pass upon its competency. Yazoo & Miss. Valley Rd. Co. v. Solomon, 123 Ark. 66, 184 S.W. 418; Lisko v. Uhren, 130 Ark. 111, 196 S.W. 816.
He also assigned as error the admission of the testimony of Walter Milam, to the effect that appellant had stated to him that, about a year before being arrested, he had peddled a wagonload of whiskey around Hartford. The issue joined was whether appellant was interested in the sale of intoxicating liquor to Walter Milam, and the statement that he had been peddling whiskey tended to throw light upon the issue, and was therefore admissible in evidence. Austin v. State, 14 Ark. 555; 10 R. C. L. p. 925.
He also assigned as error the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caton v. State
...this nature concerning statements of the accused made about a year prior to the offense charged has been held admissible. Brown v. State, 161 Ark. 253, 255 S.W. 878. On the other hand, evidence of such conduct several years before the occurrence on which the charge was based has been held i......
-
Hammond v. State
... ... to prove that appellant was procuring drugs from the Sorrells ... Drug Company and selling the same to the City Drugstore. The ... testimony tended to throw light upon the issues involved, and ... the court did not err in refusing to exclude it. See ... Brown v. State, 161 Ark. 253 at 253-255, ... 255 S.W. 878 ... 4 ... Witness Jones testified that he was the deputy circuit clerk, ... and was waiting on the court the time Baldwin entered a plea ... of guilty of grand larceny. Counsel for appellant objected to ... that ... ...
-
Witherspoon v. State
...Ark. 102, 216 S.W. 497; Whittington v. State, 160 Ark. 257, 254 S.W. 532; Anderson v. State, 161 Ark. 46, 255 S.W. 319; and Brown v. State, 161 Ark. 253, 255 S.W. 878. 2. is next insisted that the court erred in overruling appellant's objection to a statement made by the prosecuting attorne......
-
Hammond v. State
...The testimony tended to throw light upon the issues involved and the court did not err in refusing to exclude it. See Brown v. State, 161 Ark. 253-255, 255 S. W. 878. 4. Witness Jones testified that he was the deputy circuit clerk and was waiting on the court the time Baldwin entered a plea......