White v. State
| Citation | 224 S.W. 435,145 Ark. 170 |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1920 |
| Docket Number | 131 |
| Parties | WHITE v. STATE |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; John W. Wade Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
John A Hibbler, for appellant.
The court erred in refusing a new trial upon the affidavit of Lewis Seawood. Appellant was taken by surprise in the testimony of Morris Thomas. It is evident he perjured himself. 173 S.W. 405; 69 Ark. 545; 86 Id. 481.
John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and Silas W. Rogers, Assistant, for appellee.
1. Appellant did not object to the testimony of Morris Thomas and he can not now complain. 52 Ark. 180; 101 Id. 443.
2. He does not show due diligence. 137 Ark. 107. And motions for new trial for newly discovered evidence are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. 85 Ark. 179.
3. The evidence amply sustains the verdict.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of arson in the burning of a barn, the property of Mrs. Mark Valentine, in Pulaski County, Arkansas, on the night of December 3, 1919.
The principal ground urged by the appellant for reversal is that at the trial Morris Thomas testified for the State that on the night when the barn and cotton house of Mrs. Valentine was burned he had seen the fire a half mile away and hurried until he reached the point near the path leading from the burning barn and that he saw a man, whom he recognized to be C. W. White, go through a wire fence; and that since the trial appellant had discovered that Thomas had perjured himself in testifying to such a statement of facts as shown by the affidavit of one Lewis Seawood, to the effect that Morris Thomas said to him on the 5th day of January, 1920, that he was asleep in his bed on the night that the barn was burned on the Mark Valentine place; that he did not know anything about the burning until he was awakened by one McNeal; that the fire was well developed before he was awakened; that the barn was burning and in the act of falling in when he came from his room.
This ground of appellant's motion for a new trial is not well taken for the reason that he does not set forth in his motion any facts tending to prove that he could not by reasonable diligence have produced the affiant, Seawood, as a witness at the trial. "The party asking for a new trial for newly discovered evidence should not only state in his motion that he did not know of the existence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huckabee v. State
...ordinarily show an excuse why such evidence was not produced at the trial. Ary v. State, 104 Ark. 212, 148 S. W. 1032; White v. State, 145 Ark. 170, 224 S. W. 435; Morris v. State, 150 Ark. 1, 233 S. W. And, no doubt, it was under these well-settled rules that the learned trial judge refuse......
-
Huckabee v. State
...... for a new trial for newly discovered evidence should show. diligence in getting such evidence on the trial of the case,. and must ordinarily show an excuse why such evidence was not. produced at the trial. Ary v. State, 104. Ark. 212, 148 S.W. 1032; White v. State,. 145 Ark. 170, 224 S.W. 435; Morris v. State, 150 Ark. 1, 233 S.W. 801. And no doubt it was. under these well-settled rules that the learned trial judge. refused to set aside the verdict in this case. We think there. was a manifest abuse of the discretion of the trial judge in. this ......
- W. B. Worthen Company v. Vogler
-
White v. State
... 224 S.W. 435 WHITE v. STATE. (No. Supreme Court of Arkansas. September 27, 1920. Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; John W. Wade, Judge. C. W. White was convicted of arson in burning a barn, and he appeals. Affirmed. John A. Hibbler, of Little Rock, for appellant. Jno. D. Arbuckle,......