{ "id": 1342266, "name": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. State", "name_abbreviation": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. State", "decision_date": "1913-06-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "423", "last_page": "425", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "108 Ark. 423" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "60 Ala. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 5612881 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/60/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 McCord 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "McCord", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Phila. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Phila.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 Tex. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2162162 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/44/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Tex. App. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "White & W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1504055 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0280-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 303, "char_count": 5328, "ocr_confidence": 0.512, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.050682877650395836 }, "sha256": "7e8fae0b676afe2aff15c9a2bf16c888f7cb4ec2bc6b8096627b7ce4693ab813", "simhash": "1:107dc76ae0da7ac8", "word_count": 928 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:21:43.572457+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nAppellant was indicted by the grand jury of Cross County for violation of a special statute approved April 13, 1905, requiring appellant to erect and maintain a depot at Levesque, a station on its line in Cross County, Arkansas, and to \u201ckeep an agent at its depot at Levesque * * * to sell tickets, receive freight, and issue bills of lading therefor, and to deliver freight.\u201d The statute provides that each violation of its terms shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fine of not less than $50.00, nor more than $100.00, and that each day of such failure or refusal to keep an agent at said depot shall constitute a separate offense.\nThere was a trial before a jury, which resulted in appellant\u2019s conviction of violating the statute, and judgment was rendered for recovery of the fine assessed by the jury.\nThere are two questions raised on this appeal, one as to the sufficiency of the indictment, the other as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.\nThe validity of the indictment is attacked on the ground that it does not contain a specification of the name of the court in which the indictment was returned.\nThe statute provides that an indictment must contain \u201cthe title of the prosecution, specifying the name of the court in which the indictment is presented, and the name of the parties.\u201d Kirby\u2019s Digest, section 2243.\nThe caption of the indictment contains the style of the case, \u201cState of Arkansas v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company,\u2019\u2019 but the name or style of the court is not mentioned in the caption. The preliminary clause of the indictment reads as follows: \u201cThe grand jury of Cross County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas, accuse the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, a corporation, of the crime of failing to .keep agent at depot at Levesque, committed as follows, towit: \u2019 \u2019\nWe are of the opinion that that is sufficient, by necessary implication, as a specification of the name of the court. There can be but one court in the county by which a grand jury is empanelled, and that is the circuit court; and a specification that the presentation is by \u2018 \u2018 the grand jury of Cross County,\u201d is by necessary implication a statement that it is in the circuit court of that county. If the name of the court is, either in express words, or by necessary implication, specified, either in the caption or in the body of the indictment, we think it is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the statute.\nThe attack on the validity of the indictment is not well founded.\nWe are also of the opinion that the evidence' is legally sufficient to sustain the conviction.\nOne of the witnesses testified that the agent, who was a merchant and conducted a store a short distance from the depot, did not keep the depot open or attend there for purpose of accommodating shippers and travelers as required by the statute. This witness was contradicted by several others introduced by appellant, but there was enough evidence, we- think, to justify the jury in finding that the terms of the statute had not been complied with.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCulloch, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "E. B. Kinsworthy, B. E. Wiley and T. D. Gratvford, for appellant.", "Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. State.\nOpinion delivered June 9, 1913.\n1. Indictment \u2014 style of court. \u2014 The caption of an indictment contained the style of the case, hut omitted the name and style of the court in which the indictment was returned; the preliminary clause of the indictment was as follows: \u201cThe grand jury of Cross County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas, accuses, etc.\u201d Held, as there is but one court in the county by which' a grand jury is empanelled, and that is the circuit court, a specification that the presentation is by \u201cthe grand jury of Cross County\u201d is by necessary implication a statement that it is in the circuit court of that county as required by Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2243. (Page 424.)\n2. Railroads \u2014 failure to maintain agent \u2014 evidence.\u2014Where a railroad company is indicted under act of April 13, 1905, Acts of 1905, No. 161, page 405, for failure to keep an agent at a certain station, evidence that the agent, who was. a merchant and conducted a store a short distance from the depot, did not keep the station open or attend there for the purpose of accommodating shippers and travellers, is sufficient to warrant a conviction under the indictment. (Page 425'.)\nAppeal from Cross Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge;\naffirmed.\nE. B. Kinsworthy, B. E. Wiley and T. D. Gratvford, for appellant.\n1. The indictment is defective in that it fails to describe the court in which it is found. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2243; 73 Ark. 280; 5 N. C. (Murph.) 281; 22 Cyc. 230; 5 How. (Miss.) 20; 7 Tex. App. 52; 44 Tex. 376; 9 Phila. 593; 2 McCord 181; 60 Ala. 93.\n2. The verdict is not sustained by the evidence under the act, April 13, 1905. The testimony shows a substantial compliance with the act. The general rule is, that reasonable care is the measure of a railroad\u2019s duty in the maintenance of stational facilities. 4 Elliott, Railroads, \u00a7 1590.\nWm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.\n1. The indictment does show the court it was returned in substantially as required by Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 2243.\n2. The undisputed testimony shows that the statute was violated. Act July 1, 1905." }, "file_name": "0423-01", "first_page_order": 443, "last_page_order": 445 }