Dixon v. State

• Decision Date: 24 February 1900
• Citation: 55 S.W. 850
• Parties: DIXON v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 850

55 S.W. 850

DIXON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 24, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county; Felix G. Taylor, Judge.

Joe Dixon was convicted of selling whisky without a license, and he appeals. Reversed and new trial ordered.

N. F. Lamb, for appellant. Jeff Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. Jackson, for the State.

RIDDICK, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant, Joe Dixon, of the crime of selling whisky without license. We do not concur in the contention that the indictment is fatally defective, and think that the motion in arrest was properly overruled. The case was tried before the circuit judge without a jury, and the most serious question raised is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding and judgment. The evidence was brief, consisting of testimony of only two witnesses, and was taken down by a stenographer, and copied in full in the bill of exceptions. The substance of it is as follows: Dixon kept a hotel or restaurant in Jonesboro. The witness for the state testified that during a term of the circuit court at Jonesboro he stopped one night at Dixon's house. On the next morning Dixon was behind the counter in the lunch room, when another man, whose name is not given, came in, and, pulling a bottle out of his pocket, gave witness and Dixon a drink. Witness, after he had taken the drink, remarked to the man that he (witness) would like to get some whisky, to which the man responded, "I will see if I can make arrangements for you to get some." The examination of witness then proceeds as follows: "Ques. Was Mr. Dixon standing on the other side of the counter? Ans. Yes, sir. Ques. Was he listening to the conversation? Ans. Yes, sir. Ques. What did the man say? Ans. He says, `I will see if I can make arrangements for you to get some,' and he nodded to Mr. Dixon, and they both walked off together; and in a short time he came back and nodded his head at me, and I went back there with him. There was some whisky laying on the table, and I laid some money on the table and took the whisky." The witness further stated that when Dixon and the man walked off together they went into the back end of the house. He did not know whether Dixon went "behind the curtain, or into the little room." Dixon was not with the man when he returned. This is about all the evidence against Dixon, and on this evidence the trial judge found that he was guilty.

The evidence may not be entirely satisfactory, but it raises in our minds the belief that Dixon either sold the whisky, or was interested in the sale of it, which, under the indictment, amounts to the same thing. The...