{ "id": 1562543, "name": "Ex parte Baldwin", "name_abbreviation": "Ex parte Baldwin", "decision_date": "1915-05-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "416", "last_page": "419", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 Ark. 416" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 Ark. 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728422 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/13/0653-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Col. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Col.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "34 Ga. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 840582 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/34/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Am. St. Rep. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "104 Ark. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1350620 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/104/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "22 Ark. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "22 Ala. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 8495402 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/22/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Wis. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8703083 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/77/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N. W. 817", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "39 Ark. 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1898707 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/39/0448-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 N. W. 192", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "89 Pac. 1005", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 8873694 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/utah/32/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ala. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 Mo. App. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo. App.", "case_ids": [ 538673 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/20/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Okla. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "62 Tex. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2167361 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/62/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ark. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1848211 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/2/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Ark. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 Ark 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1869322 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/20/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ark. 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1530647 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/81/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ark. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "128 Ind. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1394762 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/128/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Wis. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ark. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1529029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/82/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 Ark. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1350620 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/104/0629-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 397, "char_count": 6183, "ocr_confidence": 0.434, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0865833753490038e-07, "percentile": 0.5638151104562467 }, "sha256": "33c616ff7297b0be9aca20c6bdc9b4745cdd30ce6caeed98c489d23a828cab6a", "simhash": "1:f26dc697e9df6652", "word_count": 1102 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:53:29.321926+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ex parte Baldwin." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "\u25a0MoCullooh, C. J.\nThe petitioners were convicted of a crime constituting a felony in the circuit court of Sevier county, iand they bring the record here on certiorari to test the validity of the proceeding, it being contended that the-adjourned term of court at .which the judgment of the conviction was rendered was illegally held. The basis of this contention is that there was no proper adjournment of the court over to the day for the special adjourned term.\nThe Sevier circuit court convened in regular session on the day specified by statute in January, 1915, and remained continuously in session until February 6th, when there was an adjournment, and the special adjourned term began on March 4,1915. The record of the court _ on February 5th shows the following entry: \u201cOrdered that court adjourn until.....\u201d This was signed by the . judge, and immediately on the same page follows an order of dismissal in another criminal case, and then follows an entry in these words: \u201cOrdered that court adjourn until Thursday morning, March 4th, 1915. \u2019 \u2019 This entry was signed by the judge, and the next entry on the record is the opening order on March 4th showing the opening of the court pursuant to the adjournment on February 6th. A term of court in another county intervened between the two dates, so it foHows that if on February 6th there was an adjournment \u00a1of the court without specifying \u00a1any \u00a1other date for reconvening the court, the term lapsed. Roberts & Schaeffer Co. v. Jones, 82 Ark. 188. The order of adjournment, however, shows on its face that it was incomplete, and we are of the opinion that it is explained 'and \u00a1controlled by the subsequent entry on the \u00a1same day, \u00a1signed by the judge, \u00a1showing that the adjournment was to a definite date. The term did not lapse, for \u00a1adjourned sessions are authorized by statute even over beyond a term of court in 'another \u00a1county. McVay v. State, 104 Ark. 629.\nThe ancient rule- was that a term \u00a1of court was considered as of one day and the \u00a1court \u00a1deemed to be continuously in \u00a1session from beginning of the term until the final adjournment. In conformity with that rule it has been held that the court may, at \u00a1any intermission time before final adjournment, reconvene. Barrett v. State, 1 Wis. 156. It was decided by the Indiana Supreme Court that after \u00a1an adjournment from one day to the next the court might reconvene \u00a1and proceed with business, the basis of the decision \u00a1being that the adjournment over from day to day was a mere intermission, and in contemplation \u00a1of law the \u00a1court was \u00a1continuously in session. Bowen v. Stewart, Admr. 128 Ind. 507.\nOur statute manifestly \u00a1contemplates different days of the term of \u00a1court, but it does not take \u00a1account of parts of \u00a1days, and even if the \u00a9ourt \u00a1announces \u00a1an adjournment it has the power to reconvene \u00a1on the same day for the purpose of transacting business; that is to say, it has the power to do iso, but a question anight arise as to the right of the court 'to proceed in the transaction of particular 'business in the absence of the interested parties and without notice. That question does not, however, arise in the present \u00a1case \u00a1and we have no doubt of the power of the court, even if in fact an order of adjournment has been \u00a1announced, to reconvene the court and change that order and proceed with other business. In any view that might be taken of this record, it does not show that there was an adjournment without designation of another day for reconvening, and the term did not, for that reason, lapse.\nThe prayer of the petition is therefore denied.", "type": "majority", "author": "\u25a0MoCullooh, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Otis T. Wingo, J. H. Warren .and Geo. W. Richardson, for petitioners.", "Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ex parte Baldwin.\nOpinion delivered May 10, 1915.\nCircuit courts \u2014 adjournment.\u2014The circuit court record showed \u201cordered that court adjourn uutil......\u201d, and \u00a1immediately fallowing was itihe entry \u201cordered that court adjourn until Thursday morning, March 4, 1915.\u201d Held, The record did not show that there was an adjournment without designation of another day far reconvening, and that the term did not, for that reason, lapse.\nPetition for Certiorari;\npetition denied.\nOtis T. Wingo, J. H. Warren .and Geo. W. Richardson, for petitioners.\nAn order of adjournment made by the court in these words: \u201cOrdered that court adjourn until .... \u201d and signed by the judge, is a final \u00a1adjournment of the term of court then in 'session. No order thereafter made by the judge adjourning the court to a day certain can give life to the term so previously adjourned, 'and \u00a1any proceedings had in said court iso \u00a1adjourned the second time to a day certain is coram non judice and void. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 \u00a7 1527,1531; 82 Ark. 192; 81 Ark. 311; 20 Ark 77; 27 Ark. 353; 37 Ark. 379; 2 Ark. 229; 62 Tex. 185; 7 \u00a1S. Car. 372; 22 S. Oar. 412; 2 Okla. 191; 20 Mo. App. 322; 20 Ala. 453; 89 Pac. 1005; 1 Ene. PI. & Pr. 238-242; 112 N. W. 192; Cooley\u2019s Blacfcstone, 185-186; 39 Ark. 448; 1 Gomvn\u2019s Dig. 455-456; 45 N. W. 817-18; 77 Wis. 121; 22 Ala. 57-59; 22 Ark. 278; 57 Ark. 9.\nWm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for respondent.\nSpecial adjourned sessions of the court may be held upon proper order duly entered of record. Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7 1531 and note. Where the time of beginning but not the \u00a1ending of the term is fixed, the term when begun, will continue until .some affirmative judicial act, such \u00a1as adjournment sine die, has ended it. 21 Emc. PI. & Pr. 631.\nThe circuit court has authority to adjourn over until a day after court was held in another county. 104 Ark. 629; 81 Ark. 311.\nThe record can only he .impeached by showing that it is a forgery, and in the '.absence of such showing, it is conclusive of 'every fact embodied in it. 3 Rice on Evidence, 62; Jones on Evidence, \u00a7 610; 79 Am. St. Rep. 352 and note.\nFailure of the clerk to enter the order of adjournment from the 5th to \u00a1the 6th of February would not affect the validity of the proceedings on the 6th. 34 Ga. 348; 8 Col. 210; 1 Enc. PI. & Pr. 242.\nA term of court is deemed to constitute but one day, and the orlders of adjournment from day to day are mere announcements of the order of business to come before it during the term. 13 Ark. 653; 21 Enc. PI. & Pr. 640 and note. See also 2 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 101." }, "file_name": "0416-01", "first_page_order": 438, "last_page_order": 441 }