Cox v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1900 |
| Citation | 60 S.W. 27 |
| Parties | COX v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lafayette county; Charles W. Smith, Judge.
Henry Cox was convicted of selling whisky unlawfully, and appeals. Reversed.
King & Searcy, for appellant. Jeff Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. Jacobson, for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction upon an indictment for selling whisky unlawfully. The indictment charges that the appellant sold the whisky in Lafayette county, Ark. The proof is that the whisky was sold on the steamer Waukeshaw upon Red river. The center of the main channel of Red river is the boundary line between Lafayette and Miller counties. This line is fixed by act of the legislature, which was in proof in the case. Section 1, Act Dec. 22, 1874 (creating Miller county). Besides, the court takes judicial notice of county lines as described in public acts. Bittle v. Stuart, 34 Ark. 224. The evidence to show on which side of this boundary line the whisky was sold is not satisfactory to us. Therefore it seems there is a failure to prove the venue. It is true, W. H. Baker, captain of the steamboat Waukeshaw, over the objection of appellant, was allowed to testify that Red river was considered the boundary line between Lafayette and Miller counties; but this was error, the line having been fixed by act of the general assembly, according to which it is not Red river, but the "center of the main channel of Red river." There is no uncertainty as to the boundary line between these two counties, but the uncertainty is as to the place where the offense was committed, — whether it was on the one or the other side of this line. State v. Rhoda, 23 Ark. 156. The burden of proving the venue was on the state. Scott v. State, 42 Ark. 73, 77. The court committed error in the first instruction given for the state, which assumes that Red river was the boundary line between Lafayette and Miller counties; and, even if there was evidence from which the jury might have found that the venue was proven, the giving of this instruction was prejudicial error, for which the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. Sebastian County Coal & Mining Co.
...The fact that the Legislature alone has the power to change county boundaries was clearly held by this Court in the case of Cox v. State, 68 Ark. 462, 60 S.W. 27,28 in which case there arose a question as to the boundary line between Lafayette and Miller Counties. A witness testified that t......
-
Bottom v. State
...principle in the power of the Legislature to fix concurrent jurisdiction on the waters of such a stream. The state relies on Cox v. State, 68 Ark. 462, 60 S. W. 27, where the court held that the jurisdiction over an offense committed on a stream which was the boundary line of two counties w......
- Cox v. State