Lawrence v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1902 |
| Citation | 71 S.W. 263,71 Ark. 82 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit, Fort Smith District, STYLES T. ROWE Judge.
Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Geo. W Murphy, for appellee.
This is an indictment for the crimes of forgery and uttering a forged instrument of writing. Defendant interposed a general demurrer, which was overruled. Whereupon he was arraigned, pleaded "not guilty," and trial was had, resulting in a verdict of guilty on each of the two counts, and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on each of the two counts, the imprisonment on the last count to begin at the termination of the time on the first count. From this judgment the defendant appeals to this court; and in his motion for new trial says the verdict was contrary to the law and also to the evidence, and that the court erred in allowing the state to offer testimony upon the alleged forged instrument, without first proving its loss or destruction. The motion for new trial was overruled. Defendant then moved in arrest of judgment, which being overruled he appealed. The motion in arrest is as follows, viz: "(1) That the verdict is so uncertain and indefinite as to render the same void; (2) Because there is more than one count in the indictment, and the verdict does not specify under which count defendant was found guilty; (3) The verdict does not show the defendant was found guilty on the indictment; (4) Because the verdict does not specify the crimes upon which the jury found the defendant guilty."
The indictment was apparently found upon sections 1595 and 1596 of Sand. & H. Dig., which define the two crimes, respectively, and fix the punishment therefor, and contains the usual language employed in such cases, and uses all the essential words. The demeurrer was therefore properly overruled.
The two counts were not improperly joined in the one indictment. See section 2078, Sand. & H. Dig., 7 subd., approved Oct. 27, 1893.
The form of the verdict was as follows, to-wit:
The is no bill of exceptions in this record, and the court and jury are presumed to have acted upon evidence sufficient to convict, and also to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mclaughlin v. City of Hope
...& S. Ry. Co. v. Moss, 75 Ark.64; Murrell v. Henry, 70 Ark. 163. O. A. Graves, for appellee. 1. There is no bill of exceptions in the case. 71 Ark. 82; Id. 364; 81 Id. 332. 2. The complaint states no cause of action. 54 N.E. 1062; 48 L. R. A. 707. No negligence or want of care or skill is al......
- Holt v. Watson
-
Spencer v. State
...and distinct offenses. 1 Wharton Cr. Law (10 ed.), § 712; 48 Ark. 94; 116 Mo. 548; 87 Ky. 201; 67 Mich. 222; 59 Iowa 391; 31 Tex.Crim. 587; 71 Ark. 82. If the crimes are separate and distinct offenses, the are not accomplices. 73 Minn. 150; 102 Ga. 447; 152 Mo. 100; 75 Tenn. 124; 37 S.W. 42......
- London v. McGehee