{
  "id": 1343969,
  "name": "Boyce v. City of Brinkley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boyce v. City of Brinkley",
  "decision_date": "1913-03-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "280",
  "last_page": "281",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 Ark. 280"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727997
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/10/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726078
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/16/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727997
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/10/0638-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 2084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.050796011659367014
    },
    "sha256": "c231a714d29709a07da695cdb290428e0e7a55fab3a6c19973c50de7b62950c8",
    "simhash": "1:b1c3703b4ae080ed",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:15.327905+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Boyce v. City of Brinkley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThe appellant was convicted of selling liquor in violation of an ordinance of the city of Brinkley. The testimony tended to show that appellant sold whiskey in violation of the ordinance of the city. Appellant testified that he had not sold any whiskey. Witness L. C. Owen testified as follows: I am marshal of the City of Brinkley, and was Marshal in August, 1911. I made affidavit against defendant on August 25, 1911, and arrested him on that day. Witness was asked the following question: \u2018 \u2018 Why did you arrest the .defendant ? \u2019 \u2019 The defendant objected to the question. The court overruled the objection, and witness answered as follows: \u201cWell, six or eight persons told me defendant was selling whiskey right along, and I was going to inquire of Will Q-rant if he had not bought whiskey from defendant.\u201d The answer was. objected to, and the court overruled the objection, and defendant duty saved his exceptions.\nThe admission of this testimony is made the principal ground of the motion for a new trial. The court erred in allowing the witness to testify that six or eight persons told him \u201cdefendant was selling whiskey right along.\u201d The testimony was hearsay evidence and was therefore incompetent. It was prejudicial to appellant. The court erred in not excluding it. State v. Wooddy, 10 Ark. 638; Sadler v. Sadler, 16 Ark. 628; 16 Cyc. p. 1195; Enc. Ev. vol. 6, p. 443.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. F. Greenlee, for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Boyce v. City of Brinkley.\nOpinion delivered March 10, 1913.\nEvidence\u2014hearsay testimony.\u2014When defendant is charged with selling liquor in violation of a city ordinance, testimony by the ' town marshal in answer to the question, why he arrested defendant, \u201cthat six or eight persons told him that defendant was selling whiskey right along\u2019\u2019 is hearsay testimony and incompetent.\nAppeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Eugene Lank-ford, Judge;\nreversed.\nG. F. Greenlee, for appellant.\nHearsay evidence is not admissible. 6 Ene. Ev., 443; 16 Cyc. 1195; 10 Ark. 638; 16 Id. 628.. The judgment should be reversed.\nNo brief for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0280-01",
  "first_page_order": 298,
  "last_page_order": 299
}