Hovis v. State
Decision Date | 14 January 1924 |
Docket Number | 94 |
Citation | 257 S.W. 363,162 Ark. 31 |
Parties | HOVIS v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Yell Circuit Court, Dardanelle District; J. T. Bullock Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Wilson & Majors and Herbert C. Scott, for appellant.
J. S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant, a Caucasian, was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary on a charge of concubinage, alleged to have been committed by illegally cohabiting with Nona Thompson, a female person of the negro race. The prosecution was had under §§ 2601 and 2602, C. & M. Digest. By § 2601 it is provided that concubinage between a person of the Caucasian or white race and a person of the negro or black race shall be a felony. Section 2602 defines concubinage as follows: By § 2605, C. & M. Digest, it is provided that no person shall be convicted of the crime of concubinage upon the testimony of the female, unless the same be corroborated by other evidence.
The testimony shows that Nona Thompson was employed as a domestic servant by a white family in Dardanelle, and that she resided in a servant's house in the rear of the premises, and that appellant frequently went to the room of Nona Thompson for purposes of sexual intercourse, and that on each occasion he paid her the price charged.
There was no corroboration of the testimony of Nona Thompson about these visits. There was testimony, however, that appellant's visits were suspected, and the sheriff caused him to be watched, and, while the family of Nona's employer was away for the summer, Nona was in charge of the premises, and on one occasion she permitted appellant to visit her in the home of her employer. The sheriff, who was watching, saw appellant enter the house, and he and two deputies attempted to enter, but the officers found all the entrances securely fastened. When appellant left the house he discovered that the officers were after him, and he attempted to run away, but one of the officers overtook him. Both appellant and the colored girl asked to be allowed to plead guilty that night, but the sheriff told them the case would have to be investigated. The testimony shows that appellant had met the colored girl for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her on the night of his arrest, and that he had met her on frequent prior occasions for the same purpose.
This, however, does not constitute concubinage as deflated by the statute. The statute creates and defines the offense. There was no testimony that appellant and the colored woman were living together, or had ever done so.
The word "cohabitation" has a well-defined meaning. We have long had a statute (§ 2600, C. & M. Digest) against illegal cohabitation, which is an offense that can be committed by persons of the same race as well as those of opposite races. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClure v. McClure
...Ark. 215; Turney v. State, 60 Ark. 259, 29 S.W. 893; and Hovis v. State, 162 Ark. 31, 257 S.W. 363. In all of these cases, except that of Hovis v. State, court had under consideration § 3287 of Pope's Digest which provides: "If any man and woman shall cohabit together as husband and wife wi......
-
Poland v. State, 4982
...the individuals at any other time or place. This case is controlled by other cases heretofore decided by this Court. In Hovis v. State, 162 Ark. 31, 257 S.W. 363, Mr. Justice Frank Smith said: 'The testimony shows that appellant had met the colored girl for the purpose of having sexual inte......
- Leming v. Herring
- Spore v. State