Strickland v. Little Rock

• Decision Date: 15 December 1900
• Citation: 60 S.W. 26,68 Ark. 483
• Parties: STRICKLAND v. LITTLE ROCK
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

60 S.W. 26

68 Ark. 483

STRICKLAND v. LITTLE ROCK

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 15, 1900

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, ROBERT J. LEA, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Fulk Fulk & Fulk, for appellant.

Evidence which does not tend to prove any issue is inadmissible. 57 Ark. 512. Incompetent evidence is prejudicial where the verdict is otherwise slightly supported. 51 Ark. 509; 14 Ark 502. If a defendant indicted for resisting an officer can prove that he was ignorant that the party resisted was an officer, this is a defense for such resistance. 1 Wharf. Cr. Law, 649; 32 N.Y. 509; 38 Pa.St. 265; 76 N.C. 10; 26 Texas 119. Resistance must be to the service or execution of or the attempt to serve or execute some writ or process. Sand. & H. Dig., § 1826. A police officer is a creature of the statute, and can only exercise such powers as he is authorized to exercise. 86 N.C. 684; Whart. Cr. Law, 651; 30 Ga. 426. Arrests cannot be made without due process of law, except where public security requires it. 41 Mich. 300. To search without a warrant and with force and arms is an offense. 31 Ark. 44; 1 Wharf. Cr. Law, 646. Resistance is justifiable if the officer ires no warrant. Bish. New Cr. Law, vol. 1, 440.To constitute the offense, there must be some overt act of obstruction. I Whart. Cr. Law, 649; 37 Wis. 196; 3 Wash.335. The words of a penal statute ought not be extended beyond what they will fairly and reasonably bear. Bish. Stat. Cr. 216; 37 Wis. 196.

W. J. Terry, for appellee.

The law imposed the duty of searching appellant's premises. Sand. & H. Dig., §§ 5286-5203. Greater authority and privileges are extended to a sanitary officer than ordinary police officers. Dillon, Mun. Corp. § 145. Where the instructions do not appear in the record, the presumption is the verdict is in accord with them. 31 Ark. 196; 4 Ark. 87; 2 Ark. 14.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

William Strickland has appealed from the judgment of the Pulaski circuit court, wherein he was fined for interfering with a police officer of the city of Little Rock while in the discharge if his official duties. The prosecution for the offense originated in the Little Rock police court. The facts are, substantially, as follows: B. S. Farrow, a sanitary policeman of the city of Little Rock, in this state, was instructed to examine the premises of appellant. He went to his shop at 908 Main street, in said city; went into the alley behind the shop, and there saw four sheep in a stable. He went away, and in about an hour he returned, and found the four sheep were gone. He went to the front, and tried to get into the back room of the shop, in order to examine for "signs of slaughtered sheep." Strickland stepped in front of him, and said: "You can't go in there." He went away, and afterwards returned with two other policemen, and was admitted into the shop, and "found four sheep, just killed, hanging in front."

An ordinance of the city was read as evidence in the trial, and is as follows: "Whoever in the city shall resist any member of the police department in the discharge of his duty or shall in any way interfere with or hinder or prevent him from discharging his duty as such member of the police department, or shall offer or endeavor so to do, shall be fined not less than $ 10 nor more than $ 25." The powers and duties of the sanitary policeman were not shown in the evidence. No ordinance of the city defining such powers and duties were...