Fenix v. State
Decision Date | 31 May 1909 |
Citation | 120 S.W. 388,90 Ark. 589 |
Parties | FENIX v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; Brice B. Hudgins, Judge; reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
W. F Pace and Troy Pace, for appellant.
1. The court erred in setting aside the verdict of the jury. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy. Const., art. 11 § 8. Nor can a judgment of acquittal of an offense the punishment of which is imprisonment be reversed. Nor can a court set aside a verdict of acquittal when the punishment may be imprisonment. 15 Ark. 261; 20 Id. 160; 28 Id. 113; 36 Id. 84; 38 Id. 550; 42 Id. 270; 47 Id. 568; Kirby's Digest § 5112.
2. There is no law to punish the purchaser of liquor. This case does not fall within Hunter v. State, 60 Ark. 312. See 72 Ark. 16; 68 Ark. 471.
Hal L. Norwood, Att'y General, and C. A. Cunningham, Assistant, for appellee.
1. No penalty of imprisonment is involved in this case. Kirby's Digest §§ 2618, 5112, and cases cited by appellant.
2. Appellant was the prime mover in procuring a violation of the law and aiding a violator of the law, hence an accessory in the second degree, and liable as a principal. 88 Ark. 240; 45 Ark. 361; 60 Id. 312.
The grand jury of Boone County, at the July, 1908, term of the circuit court of that county, indicted Newt Fenix for selling one pint of liquor without license. He was tried and acquitted. The court set aside the verdict of acquittal. He objected and saved exceptions. He was again tried on the following agreed statement of facts:
He was found guilty, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $ 50. Judgment was rendered against him for that amount, and he appealed.
Appellant contends that the trial court did not have the authority to set aside the verdict of acquittal in the first trial. But this contention is untenable. The punishment for the offense charged was only a fine. In such cases this court has repeatedly held that a trial court can set aside a verdict of acquittal. Jones v. State, 15 Ark. 261; State v. Czarnikow, 20 Ark. 160; Steck v. State, 28 Ark. 113; Taylor v. State, 36 Ark. 84. But appellant says that upon a conviction of a second offense of selling liquor without license the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. State
...section 5135 supra. The act does not apply to this case. Defendant merely purchased liquor for others as agent; he did not sell any. 90 Ark. 589; 72 Id. The penalties of the law are against the seller and not against one who buys. 90 Ark. 579; Ib. 589; 12 Cyc. 447; 124 Ark. 447; 124 Ark. 20......
-
Payne v. State, Use City of Booneville
... ... making it unlawful to sell liquors, can not be convicted ... where the proof showed that he only purchased or aided the ... purchaser. Woods v. State, 114 Ark. 391, ... 170 S.W. 79; Dale v. State, 90 Ark. 579, ... 120 S.W. 389; Fenix v. State, 90 Ark. 589, ... 120 S.W. 388; Whitmore v. State, 72 Ark ... 14, 77 S.W. 598; Foster v. State, 45 Ark ... In such ... cases there would be a fatal variance between the charge and ... the proof. Even if there were a statute prohibiting one from ... purchasing ... ...
-
Wilson v. State
... ... confines his participation in the transaction exclusively to ... the buying, and not to the selling, is not guilty of any ... offense. The penalties of this act are denounced against one ... who sells, and not against, one who buys. See Dale ... v. State, 90 Ark. 579, 120 S.W. 389; Fenix ... v. State, 90 Ark. 589, 120 S.W. 388, and cases there ... cited. See, also, 12 Cyc. 447, and cases cited ... It is ... finally insisted that sections 2 and 3 of the act are ... unconstitutional, because any corporation which violates the ... act is made guilty of a ... ...
-
Wilson v. State
...he is not guilty, for our statute does not make it unlawful to purchase liquor. Dale v. State, 90 Ark. 579, 120 S. W. 389; Fenix v. State, 90 Ark. 589, 120 S. W. 388; Whitmore v. State, 72 Ark. 14, 77 S. W. 598; Payne v. State, 124 Ark. 20, 24, 186 S. W. 612. To be interested in the sale of......