Trulock v. State
Decision Date | 16 July 1902 |
Citation | 69 S.W. 677,70 Ark. 558 |
Parties | TRULOCK v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court, JOEL D. CONWAY, Judge.
Reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted, and appealed to this court.
The indictment charges that on December 20, 1901, the appellant willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and of his malice aforethought, and with premeditation and deliberation, did kill and murder Delia Walker, by shooting her with a gun etc.
The evidence tended to show that Delia Walker was a colored woman, and that she and the appellant had been living together in the same house for about two years before Delia Walker was killed. That a very old negro woman (about 99 years of age) was living in the same house with them at the time of the killing, and had been living there for quite a while before. That on Friday night before the killing (which occurred at about 10 or 11 o'clock on Saturday night following) the appellant and the deceased had a "spat" (to use the language of the old woman), and that the defendant had beaten and bruised her mouth, and had said he would kill her, that she did not treat him right.
R. J Stringfellow testified: Cross-examination: Redirect::
Eliza Lattie testified: Cross-examination: Q. "You didn't know it was Tom by seeing him?" A. [Appellant moved to exclude the testimony of this witness on the point of the identification of appellant at the time and place of the killing as hearsay and incompetent, and, on his motion being denied, excepted.]
Jim Smith testified: Cross-examination: Redirect:
Drucilla Smith testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barringer v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
...629. Construction of section 6349, Sandels & Hill's Digest. 49 Ark. 535; 63 Ark. 840; 41 Ark. 161; 49 Ark. 535; 63 Ark. 633; 66 Ark. 46; 70 Ark. 558. Where the verdict right upon the whole case, it will not be disturbed for a technical error. 4 Ark. 525; 14 Ark. 114; 10 Ark. 53; 19 Ark. 96;......
-
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Enoch
...& H. Dig., §§ 5604, 5717, 5722; 50 Ark. 466, 475. The sufficiency of said denials cannot be questioned, for the first time, upon appeal. 70 Ark. 558, 563. BATTLE, J. S. Enoch sued the Hartford Insurance Company on a policy of insurance. He alleged in his complaint that the defendant, on the......
-
Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. Coffman
...by raising the question here for the first time. This statute cannot be relied on unless pleaded in the answer. 71 Ark. 302; 46 Ark. 96; 70 Ark. 558; 87 Ark. 443; 70 Ark. 558; Ark. 391; 81 Ark. 476; 82 Ark. 260; 83 Ark. 574; 79 Ark. 53; 90 Ark. 469; 74 Ark. 72; 90 Ark. 531. OPINION HART, J.......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Boyles
...jury; hence it was competent to show their condition at and immediately preceding the happening of the accident. 12 Ark. 782; 48 Ark. 333; 70 Ark. 558; 43 99. 2. An objection to remarks of counsel is not sufficient, and can not avail on appeal, unless it was pressed to the point of a ruling......