Mayfield v. State

• Decision Date: 22 October 1923
• Docket Number: 191
• Citation: 254 S.W. 841,160 Ark. 474
• Parties: MAYFIELD v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

254 S.W. 841

160 Ark. 474

MAYFIELD v. STATE

No. 191

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 22, 1923

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; James Cochran, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

D. H. Howell, for appellant.

J S. Utley, Attorney General; John L. Carter W. T. Hammock and Darden Moose, Assistants, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

An affidavit was made by J. B. Kelley, before a justice of the peace, charging appellant and another man with the crime of robbery and of giving away whiskey, and upon this affidavit a warrant of arrest issued in which appellant was charged with the commission of those crimes.

There was an examining trial before the justice of the peace, at the conclusion of which the justice entered the following judgment: "The court dismisses the robbery, believing the evidence insufficient to sustain the case of felony. In whiskey case the court finds the defendant guilty of transporting whiskey and assess their fine at one hundred dollars and costs."

There was an appeal to the circuit court, and, upon the coming on of the cause for trial, appellant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the justice court had no jurisdiction, for the following reasons: "First. That there was no affidavit or information filed in said court charging the defendants with transporting. Second. The said justice had no personal knowledge of said offense. Third. That the defendants were not furnished with a copy of the affidavit or information, or made aware that they were being tried on a charge of transportation, and in fact were not tried on said charge."

This motion was overruled, and, after a trial before a jury, appellant was found guilty of transporting liquor and fined $ 100, and judgment was rendered accordingly.

For the reversal of this judgment appellant assigns as error the action of the court in overruling his motion to dismiss. He also insists that the testimony was insufficient to sustain the charge, and that error was committed in the admission of certain testimony.

The justice sat as an examining court, for the charges preferred were felonies, and when it was found that appellant was guilty of a violation of the law other than the ones charged, it was the duty of the justice to hold him to answer that charge. Section 2933, C. &. M. Digest, so provides.

It is true the justice should have given time to prepare to meet that charge, had that request been made, but it does not appear that such a request was made. However, the justice had jurisdiction to try appellant upon the charge of transporting liquor, and this he did, and the refusal to grant a continuance, had one been asked, would not have defeated his jurisdiction.

By § 3298, C. & M. Digest, it is provided that no written information or pleadings shall be required in prosecutions in justices' courts. There was therefore no lack of jurisdiction on the part of the justice to try appellant upon the charge of transporting liquor.

We do not stop to inquire whether there was any error in the procedure before the justice or not, as the cause was appealed to the circuit court, where there was a trial de novo. The original affidavit and warrant had brought appellant into court, and the justice, sitting as an examining court, found appellant was guilty of an offense and imposed a fine for its commission. This became the offense with the commission of which appellant was charged upon his appeal to the circuit court, and it was unimportant to inquire whether there had been irregularities leading to this situation, because the trial in the circuit court was de novo. Watson v. State, 29 Ark. 299; Lismore v. State, 94 Ark. 207, 126 S.W. 853; Dudney v. State, 136 Ark. 453, 206 S.W. 898; Kinkead v. State, 45 Ark. 536; Cox v. Jonesboro, 112 Ark. 96, 164 S.W. 767; State v. Brown, 131 Ark. 127, 198 S.W. 877; Ashcraft v. State, 140 Ark. 505, 215 S.W. 688; Tucker v. State, 86 Ark. 436, 111 S.W. 275.

The failure of the court to arraign appellant is assigned as error. In answer to this assignment of error, it may be said that no arraignment was required, as a...