Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 13 May 1905
• Citation: 87 S.W. 631
• Parties: CHOCTAW, O. & G. R. CO. v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

87 S.W. 631

CHOCTAW, O. & G. R. CO. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 13, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County, Greenwood District; Styles T. Rowe, Judge.

Action by the state against the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

See 85 S. W. 85.

E. B. Pierce and T. S. Buzbee, for appellant. Robert L. Rogers, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BATTLE, J.

The following complaint, in the form of an indictment, was filed in this action.

"The grand jury of Sebastian county, for the Greenwood district thereof, in the name and by the authority of the state of Arkansas, accuse the defendant, Choctaw, Oklahoma and Gulf Railroad Company, of the crime of failing to ring bell or sound whistle at public road crossing, committed as follows, to wit: The said defendant, a corporation owning and operating a line of railroad running through the Greenwood district of Sebastian county, Arkansas, in the county and district aforesaid, on the 4th day of May, 1902, did unlawfully fail and neglect to ring the bell or sound the whistle on a certain engine and locomotive within 80 rods of the crossing of the railroad track of said railroad company and the Booneville and Texas Public road, in Road District No. 11, and unlawfully failed and neglected to keep said bell ringing or whistle sounding until said engine or locomotive then and there crossed said public road, the said engine and locomotive being then and there run by said railroad company on the tracks of said railroad company, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas. Ben Cravens, Prosecuting Attorney Twelfth Judicial District."

The defendant filed the following motion: "Comes the defendant, Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company, and represents to the court that on the day mentioned in the indictment the defendant operated many trains over its line of railroad through the Greenwood district of Sebastian county, some of which trains were passenger trains and some freight trains, some going east and some west; that, from the allegations of the indictment, the defendant is unable to determine which particular train is referred to; that the defendant cannot defend this suit without greatly impairing its service and at great expense unless plaintiff be required to set out specifically which of its trains committed the alleged offense.

"Wherefore, the premises considered, the defendant prays the court to require the plaintiff to make its indictment more definite and certain, in this: that the plaintiff shall allege the course and character of the train, the hour of the day, and the number of the train by which the defendant operates the same, and to set out such other facts as will enable the defendant to definitely ascertain the particular train referred to in the indictment; and, if the plaintiff fails to amend the indictment in this respect, defendant moves the court to dismiss the same."

After the filing of this motion, and before it was disposed of, and on the same day, the attorney of the plaintiff delivered to the defendant the following notice:

"To the Above-Named Defendant: You are hereby notified that in the above-entitled cases, being indictments numbered 154, 155, 168, 169, 170, 171, and 172, the proof...