Humphrey v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 220.) |
| Citation | 269 S.W. 988 |
| Parties | HUMPHREY v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; Turner Butler, Judge.
Vance Humphrey was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Isgrig & Dillon, of Little Rock, and T. D. Wynne, of Fordyce, for appellant.
H. W. Applegate, Atty. Gen., and Jno. L. Carter and Darden Moose, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was indicted and convicted in the Dallas county circuit court of the crime of selling alcoholic, vinous, malt, spirituous, or fermented liquors and sentenced by the judgment of the court to one year's imprisonment in the state penitentiary, from which judgment he duly prosecutes this appeal.
The night marshal of the city of Fordyce, Ark., and a deputy sheriff of Dallas county, Ark., testified substantially as follows: They went to the home of the appellant one night during the month of July and found a large bunch of negroes there. They saw appellant pour something out of a fruit jar into a glass and hand it to a negro and the negro gave appellant some money. Appellant made the change and put the money in his pocket. The liquid in the fruit jar was about three inches deep. The officers then walked back away from the house and saw appellant and another negro come out of the house and go into a little shed at the back of the house and come back carrying something. The appellant and the negro saw the officers and asked them who it was. The officers did not reply. The other negro ran in the house. The officers ran to the back door, and appellant came out with his Winchester gun, and one of the officers grabbed the gun and arrested the appellant. The gun was loaded. The other negroes in the house were all running trying to get away. One of the officers searched as many of them as he could and went back in the house. Four empty fruit jars were found — two absolutely empty and two lying on their sides with some whisky in them that would not pour out. The floor was wet and the whole place smelled very strongly of whisky. There were some soda water bottles in the house; some sitting up and others in the case. When they started to take the appellant to town, he went in the room where his wife was and pulled a lot of money out of his pockets and piled it on the bed and his wife took it. One of the officers took one of the jars that was turned on its side and had a little whisky left in it and brought it away with him — it had corn whisky in it. Appellant was in the habit of having these suppers at his home every Saturday during the summer of 1924. They were always well attended. The night the officers were out there, there were about 150 negroes there. They were sometimes pretty noisy. On several occasions one of the officers had arrested "drunks" coming from there, and at one time the officer arrested a man who had a half-gallon fruit jar about two-thirds full of whisky.
On the night the officers were out there, the crowd seemed pretty jolly. One of the officers was asked:
"What was the condition of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillard v. State
...the trial court to give such an instruction but we have tacitly recognized the necessity for so instructing the jury. In Humphrey v. State, 168 Ark. 163, 269 S.W. 988, we held that the court correctly charged the jury that: If any fact in the case or any element necessary to constitute the ......
- Humphreys v. State