Saffell v. State

Decision Date11 May 1914
Docket Number311
Citation167 S.W. 483,113 Ark. 97
PartiesSAFFELL v. STATE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Western District; R. E. Jeffery Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

McCaleb & Reeder, for appellant.

1. The demurrer should have been sustained to the indictment. It was not good at common law, as no allegation of ownership appears. 48 Ark. 57-9; 66 Id. 65; 14 A. & E. Enc. L (1 ed.) p. 12; Kirby's Dig., §§ 1923, 2227 subdiv. 2.

2. Reversible error was committed in the exclusion of material testimony. 117 N.W. 528; 110 Mass. 401; 118 N.W. 706; 108 S.W. 1131; 6 A. 619; 3 Cush. 558; 61 A. 9; 54 P. 502; 32 Am. Dec. 661; 104 N.W. 800.

3. Rejected instruction No. 1 correctly stated the law. 97 Ark. 36-7; 65 Ark. 426.

Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.

1. The indictment was sufficient. Kirby's Dig., § 1923, 2233.

2. There was no error in the exclusion of evidence.

3. There was no error in the court refusing the instructions offered by appellant.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

The appellant was convicted on an indictment which charged as follows: "That the said J. A. Saffell, in the district, county and State aforesaid, on the 30th day of December, 1913, did unlawfully, wilfully, maliciously and mischievously injure, tear down and remove a certain building known as the Harmony Church building, the same being public property," etc.

Appellant demurred to the indictment. The court overruled the demurrer, and appellant urges this ruling of the court as one of his grounds for reversal.

The statute under which appellant was indicted is as follows:

"To cut, write upon, deface, disfigure or damage any part or appurtenance of the inclosure of the Statehouse, or any other building belonging to the State, or of any church or schoolhouse, or other public building, or of any citizen of this State, when not occupied, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars." Kirby's Dig., § 1923.

The indictment was sufficient to charge the offense under the above statute. The name of the owner of the church was not necessary to identify the crime at which the statute was leveled. The language of the statute does not require the name of the owner to be mentioned. To charge in the language of the statute, or in words of the same purport, that one disfigured or damaged any church house, was sufficient. "Where an offense involves the commission, or an attempt to commit, an injury to person or property, and is described in other respects with sufficient certainty to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured, or attempted to be injured, is not material." Kirby's Dig., § 2233.

Even if the indictment had erroneously designated the particular denomination, or the trustees thereof holding the title for the members of the church, still the indictment would not have been defective on that account. The words "injure, tear down and remove" are certainly broad enough to include the words "deface, disfigure or damage."

The indictment was sufficient to advise the appellant of the crime with which he was charged, and he was not prejudiced because of the failure to use the precise words of the statute. See Kirby's Digest, § 2229.

2. The appellant complains because the court refused to allow him to testify that in tearing down the building he did not have any intention of injuring anybody. To constitute the offense charged, it was not necessary that the appellant should have had the specific intention of injuring any one. A specific intent to injure some one is not an ingredient of the crime charged, and if one tears down, injures or damages a church house he is guilty, under the statute, of a misdemeanor whether he intended to injure any specific individual or many individuals or not. The offense is complete when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sabel v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1981
    ...buildings and other structures * * *." (4th Ed. 1968). Deface has also been interpreted as synonymous with injure. Saffell v. State, 113 Ark. 97, 99, 167 S.W. 483 (1914); State v. Fahy, 149 Conn. 577, 580-581, 183 A.2d 256 (1962) petition for cert. dismissed, 371 U.S. 943 (1962); see Vaughn......
  • Jarrett v. Jarrett
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1914
    ... ...          The ... rights of the parties are to be determined by the homestead ... laws of the State which existed at the time of the death of ... H. C. Jarrett in the year 1869. That was under the ... Constitution of 1868, which provided that the ... ...
  • Thompson v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1922
    ...intent on the part of the accused against any preson, or persons, intended to injure any specific individual or many individuals. 113 Ark. 97. church organization and the church-going public had such an interest in the building as would authorize the prosecution of any one injuring the same......
  • St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Curtis
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1914
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT