Poole v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5345,5345 |
| Citation | 428 S.W.2d 628,244 Ark. 1222 |
| Parties | Patricia POOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John S. Choate and Burl C. Rotenberry, Little Rock, for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Patricia Poole, was charged in Little Rock Municipal Court with the offense of failure to vacate under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 50--523 (1947). After her plea of not guilty was entered, appellant was tried and found guilty in municipal court and was assessed a fine of $15.00 and costs of $10.50. Upon appeal to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, appellant's motion to dismiss was denied and the judgment of the Little Rock Municipal Court was affirmed. On appeal to this court, appellant relies on the following point for reversal:
'Appellant's conviction should be reversed and Ark.Stat.Ann. 50--523 declared to be uncontitutional since it constitutes an invalid and unreasonable exercise of the police power of the State of Arkansas in that the subject matter thereof is outside the scope of the public health, safety and general welfare and interest, and consequently the enforcement of Ark.Stat.Ann. 50--523 deprives appellant of rights secured to her by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.'
The facts are stipulated and not in dispute. On April 14, 1967, appellant entered into an oral agreement with Mr. Frank Seymour to rent an aparment located at 4408 West 28 Street in Little Rock on a weekly basis at the rate of $22.00 per week. On June 23, 1967, at which time appellant was one week and six days behind in her rent, she was served with a ten day notice to vacate the apartment for nonpayment of rent. On July 20, 1967, some 28 days after service of the notice to vacate, appellant had still not moved and was charged under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 50--523 (1947), which is as follows:
We cannot agree with appellant that § 50--523, supra, is unconstitutional. Its provisions have been the law in this state since 1901 and its constitutionality has never been judicially questioned. The courts may not review the wisdom, discretion, or expediency of the legislature in the exercise of the powers it possesses, Berry v. Gordon, 237 Ark. 547, 376 S.W.2d 279; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353, and a statute will not be struck down by the courts unless it is obviously unconstitutional. All reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of such constitutionality, there being a presumption in favor of validity. Berry v. Gordon, supra; McEachin v. Martin, 193 Ark....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fein v. Selective Service System Local Board No Yonkers 8212 58
...their exaltation of property rights than they have of constitutionally safeguarded individual liberties. See, e.g., Poole v. State, 244 Ark. 1222, 1225, 428 S.W.2d 628, 630: 'The right of an individual to acquire and possess and protect property is inherent and inalienable and declared high......
-
City of Fayetteville v. S & H, Inc.
...as before and higher than constitutional sanction. See City of Little Rock v. Williams, 206 Ark. 861, 177 S.W.2d 924; Poole v. State, 244 Ark. 1222, 428 S.W.2d 628; Art. 2, § 22, Constitution of Arkansas. Attempts to deprive the owner of a pre-existing use have been regarded as unconstituti......
-
State v. McIlroy, 79-320
...v. Turk's Auto Corp., Inc., 254 Ark. 67, 491 S.W.2d 387; Blundell v. City of West Helena, 258 Ark. 123, 522 S.W.2d 661; Poole v. State, 244 Ark. 1222, 428 S.W.2d 628; City of Little Rock v. Raines, 241 Ark. 1071, 411 S.W.2d 486; Sheet Metal Workers Int. Ass'n. v. E. W. Daniels Pumbing & Hea......
-
Carter v. State
...was long unassailed. See Stone v. State, 254 Ark. 566, 494 S.W.2d 715; Williams v. State, 253 Ark. 973, 490 S.W.2d 117; Poole v. State, 244 Ark. 1222, 428 S.W.2d 628. As we said in Williams, if such a statute were in violation of federal constitutional principles, surely the thought would h......