State v. Withrow

• Decision Date: 27 November 1886
• Citation: State v. Withrow, 2 S.W. 184, 47 Ark. 551 (Ark. 1886)
• Parties: STATE v. WITHROW
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2 S.W. 184

47 Ark. 551

STATE v. WITHROW

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 27, 1886

APPEAL from Madison Circuit Court, Hon. J. M. PITTMAN, Judge.

Affirmed.

Dan W Jones, Attorney-General, for Appellant.

The appellee was indicted for obstructing a public highway. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained. The indictment was drawn with sufficient particularity and charges an offense against the statute. Sec. 1865, Mansf. Dig. It was unnecessary to define the termini of the way. 2 Arch., 1763 8 Am. ed.; 2 Bish. Crim. Pro., sec. 1051. The designation of the place by the number of the road district is more specific than the second count of State v. Lemay, 13 Ark 407. The case of Matthews v. State, 25 O. St., 539-40, upholds an indictment very similar to this one.

The demurrer should have been overruled.

OPINION

COCKRILL, C. J.

The indictment alleges that "the said James Withrow, in the county of Madison, in the state of Arkansas, on the 10th day of March, 1885, unlawfully did obstruct a public road in district No. 21, the same then and there being a public highway," etc.

The court sustained a demurrer to the indictment and the state appealed.

The description of the road given in the indictment is not certain. It is made the duty of the county courts to divide their several counties into road districts. Mansf. Dig., sec. 5890. This is commonly done by designating a single highway as road district of a given number. But the county court may, if it sees fit, embrace the whole or a part of several highways in a single district and put them all under the supervision of one overseer. Dig., 5894. When, therefore, there is no other designation than "a road in a given district," it may mean any one of several roads. It is not, therefore, certain from the indictment what road is meant. Any general designation or special description, by which the road can be definitely ascertained, will be sufficient; but that a designation which leaves it uncertain which of many or several roads in the county is intended is not definite enough to sustain the charge, is seen by an inspection of the first count in the indictment in Lemay's case in 13 Ark. 405. See State v. Town, etc., 12 Vt. 422; Alexander v. State, 16 Ala. 661.

There is no public end to be subserved in the prosecution of an appeal by the state in any criminal case unless it is important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal...