State v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 22 October 1945
• Docket Number: 4388
• Citation: 189 S.W.2d 787,209 Ark. 155
• Parties: State v. Dixon
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

189 S.W.2d 787

209 Ark. 155

State v. Dixon

No. 4388

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 22, 1945

Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge.

Appeal Dismissed.

Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, and Henry W. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

OPINION

Robins J.

Appellees, Dixon, Carter and Robertson, were charged in information filed by the prosecuting attorney with violation of § 3212 of Pope's Digest, which makes unlawful the sale, transfer or disposal of mortgaged chattels with intent to defeat the mortgagee in the collection of his debt. The evidence established that appellee Dixon had mortgaged his cotton crop to the United States of America, to secure a F.S.A. loan, on which a considerable balance remained unpaid at the time of the sale of the cotton referred to in the information; that appellee Dixon procured appellee Carter to haul the cotton to Gould, where appellee Robertson, who had been asked by the other two appellees to accompany them on the trip, had the cotton ginned in his name and sold it for $ 110.60, Dixon receiving from Robertson $ 60 out of the proceeds. It was also shown that Dixon failed to pay to the mortgagee any part of the money received for the cotton until after his arrest; but the officials of the F.S.A. admitted that Dixon had permission from them to sell the cotton in the open market, with the understanding that he should pay over the proceeds to the mortgagee.

At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court, deeming that under the rule announced in the case of Lawhorn v State, 108 Ark. 474, 158 S.W. 113, in which we held that a conviction could not be had in a prosecution for this offense where it was shown that the mortgagee had agreed for the mortgagor to sell the mortgaged property, the state had failed to prove appellees guilty as charged, directed the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty," which was done.

The prosecuting attorney prayed an appeal, prosecuted here by the Attorney General, under the authority of §§ 4253 and 4254 of Pope's Digest, authorizing such an appeal when the Attorney General, from an inspection of the record, determines that the trial court has committed an error, correction of which by the Supreme Court is essential to the proper and uniform administration of the criminal laws of the state. In all such cases, regardless of the decision in this court, the trial had below is a bar to any subsequent trial of the accused for the same offense, the only possible result of the appeal being a ruling by us on questions of law that might serve as a guide in future trials.

This court, in the case of State v. Smith, 94 Ark. 368, 126 S.W. 1057, said: "The object and purpose of this provision of the statute is to obtain the decision of this court upon questions of the criminal law, so that it may serve to secure the correct and uniform administration thereof. But, if the decision of the question presented by the appeal would not serve such purpose, then it would not be of sufficient importance under this provision of the law to render an opinion thereon, and the appeal should not in such case be entertained. In the case at bar the legal question as to the sufficiency of the indictment was by the lower court decided in favor of the State, from which ruling therefore no...