Kightlinger v. State
| Decision Date | 28 October 1912 |
| Citation | 150 S.W. 690,105 Ark. 172 |
| Parties | KIGHTLINGER v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; John W. Meeks, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
S. A D. Eaton, for appellant.
1. An indictment for the offense of disposing of mortgaged cotton which merely alleges that it was cotton "upon which the said Ball Mercantile Company then and there had a lien by virtue of a certain chattel mortgage," without stating facts from which the court could arrive at a legal conclusion that the company had such valid existing lien on such cotton is bad for want of sufficient description of the offense charged. Kirby's Dig., § 2227; 11 O. 282; 26 Ark 323; 68 Ark. 490.
2. An allegation of the value of the cotton sold was material and necessary to a valid indictment. Kirby's Dig., §§ 2011, 2013, 2014.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Wm. H. Rector, Assistant, for appellee.
1. The general allegation that a lien existed by virtue of a chattel mortgage was sufficient under our statutes. 68 Ark. 480; 50 Ia. 194.
2. The statute defining the offense (Kirby's Dig., § 2011) says nothing about the value of the security or the value of the property disposed of. They were mere matters of proof, and it became the duty of the jury, under proper instructions as to the law, to convict of a felony or misdemeanor according to the proof as to values. See 43 Ark. 284; 64 Ark. 194; 65 Ark. 80; 43 Ark. 378.
The defendant was indicted for selling certain property upon which a mortgage lien existed. The indictment in apt and comprehensive language charged that the defendant had sold certain property which was therein described, upon which a lien then existed by virtue of a certain chattel mortgage executed by him, and that such sale was made without the consent of the mortgagee; but the indictment did not allege the value of the property which was sold nor the amount of the debt secured by said mortgage. To this indictment the defendant interposed a demurrer, which was overruled; and upon his trial he was convicted of a felony, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of six months. The indictment is founded upon section 2011 of Kirby's Digest, which makes it an offense for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any property upon which certain liens exist, amongst them a lien created by virtue of a mortgage, with intent to defeat the holder thereof in the collection of his debt secured thereby. It is further provided that persons convicted of this offense shall be deemed guilty of a felony where the debt secured by such lien exceeds in amount the sum of $ 10, and the property so sold or otherwise disposed of exceeds in value the sum of $ 10; and where the debt secured by such lien does not exceed the amount Of $ 10, or where the property so sold or otherwise disposed of does not exceed in value the sum of $ 10, such persons shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Kirby's Digest, §§ 2013, 2014.
Under the provisions of the above statutes, the defendant could be guilty of a felony only where the property disposed of exceeded in value the sum of $ 10 and the debt secured by the mortgage exceeded in amount the sum of $ 10. The value of the property disposed of and the amount of the debt secured by the mortgage are therefore, of the very essence of the offense of which defendant was convicted. The offense is a graded crime, and the value of the property and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finch v. State, CR77-149
...242 S.W.2d 640; Switzer v. Golden, 224 Ark. 543, 274 S.W.2d 769; Hettle v. State, 144 Ark. 564, 222 S.W. 1066. See also, Kightlinger v. State, 105 Ark. 172, 150 S.W. 690. The purpose of this requirement is to afford appellant notice of essential elements upon which the state relies for asse......
-
Murry v. State
...67 Me. 446; 61 S.W. 937; 11 Ark. 504; 54 Am. Dec. 212; 12 Ark. 692. 5. Proof of value was an essential ingredient of the offense charged. 105 Ark. 172. And the testimony of the Harrell, on the market value of the cotton shipped to Memphis, as to his opinion of the market value without fixin......
-
Royal v. State
...to support the verdict. 68 Ark. 529; 97 Ark. 156; 85 Ark. 360; 114 Ark. 230. Necessary to allege and prove value of the property. 105 Ark. 172. judgment should be reversed. J. S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter and Wm. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee. No objections were made to......
-
Scoggins v. State, CR--75--113
...or a felony, and if the value is less than $35, the crime is petit larceny which is a misdemeanor. In the case of Kightlinger v. State, 105 Ark. 172, 150 S.W. 690, the defendant was indicted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of six months for selling ce......