Moose v. State

• Citation: 5 S.W. 885
• Parties: MOOSE <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1887
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

5 S.W. 885

MOOSEv.

STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 12, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Carroll county; J. M. PITTMAN, Judge.

S. W. Williams and Blackwood & Williams, for appellant. Dan W. Jones, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SMITH, J.

The indictment charged that Moose, the clerk of the county court of Carroll county, did, on the eleventh day of May, 1887, unlawfully fail to publish in some newspaper of said county, there being a newspaper then published in said county, a full and complete financial report of the condition of the affairs of said county, giving its indebtedness, its sources of revenue, the amount expended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, for all purposes, the amount from all sources for all purposes collected, within 30 days after the annual settlement with the collector of said county for said fiscal year, against the peace, etc. A demurrer to the indictment, and, after the conviction of the defendant, a motion in arrest of judgment, were overruled. Moose was fined $10, and removed from office. The revenue act of March 31, 1883, provides that the clerk of the county court shall, within 30 days after each annual settlement with the county collector, make out a full and complete financial report of the condition of the affairs of the county, giving its indebtedness, its source of revenue, the amount expended during the fiscal year for all purposes, the amount from all sources for all purposes, * * * and forthwith publish the same in some newspaper published in such county. And a subsequent section subjects to indictment and removal from office any officer who fails to comply with any of the requirements of the act. Mansf. Dig. §§ 5825, 5872. The chief objection to the indictment is that it does not positively aver that the collector had ever made his settlement, but leaves it to inference. Doubtless it would have been more artistic and correct pleading to allege that the collector had settled on a day named, and that the defendant had neglected, for 30 days thereafter, to publish his financial statement. But this is a statutory offense, having no relation to the common law, and in such cases it is generally sufficient to charge the defendant with acts or omissions of duty coming fully within the statutory description, in the substantial words of the statute, without further expansion. Bish. Crim. Proc. § 611; U. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 362.

This rule we have acted upon in numerous cases. In State v. Collins, 19 Ark. 587, it was applied to a case strikingly like the present case. The indictment here follows the language of the statute...