{ "id": 1556201, "name": "Crabtree v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Crabtree v. State", "decision_date": "1916-03-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "68", "last_page": "70", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "123 Ark. 68" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "18 Ala. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3170349 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/18/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Minn. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 741438 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/48/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 Ind. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "35 Atl. 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "78 Pae. 565", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 Mich. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1366347 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/71/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S. W. 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320348 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ark. 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "117 Ark. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1564897 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/117/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ala. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3170349 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/18/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S. W. 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 354, "char_count": 4673, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0687809240695261e-07, "percentile": 0.5592416777966592 }, "sha256": "8909c4b1fd7c30537aed70fbc54f7f46ca9951feb2131461fa42e0f8983cb9a8", "simhash": "1:b8f4c4be420d4f39", "word_count": 798 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:57.925533+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Crabtree v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nSection 3618 of Kirby\u2019s Digest provides: \u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, or company, 'to purchase, or have in possession for barter, exchange or sale, or to expose for barter, exchange or sale, or to sell\u2019 any buck, doe, fawn, or any part thereof, or any wild turkey, pinnated grouse, commonly called prairie chicken, or any quail, sometimes called Virginia partridge, or any other kind of game, wild fowls, or birds whatsoever, within this State, except bear, rabbits, squirrels.\u201d\nAppellant was convicted of selling wild ducks under the above section, and he contended that the statute does not prohibit the sale of wild ducks, invoking the maxim of ejusdem generis. But that maxim, while applied' to effectuate the legislative intent\u2019 is never allowed to defeat it. Foster v. Blount, 18 Ala. 687; State v. Broderick, 7 Mo. Ap. 19, 20.\n\u201cIt has never been supposed,\u201d says the Supreme Court of Illinois, \u201cthat the rule required the rejection of the general terms entirely, but only that they should be restricted to oases of the same kind as those expressly enumerated. On the contrary, it must yield to another equally salutary rule of construction, viz: that every part of a statute should, if possible, be upheld and given its appropriate force.\u201d Misch v. Russell, 136 Ill;. 22, 25.\nThe general words, \u201cor any other kind of game, wild fowl, or birds, whatsoever\u2019\u201d following the particular kinds enumerated, were manifestly intended 'by the Legislature to include animals, fowls and birds of a wild nature that are fit and commonly hunted for use and food in addition to and different from those specified. Law Dictionary; English 'Stand. Diet.; Worcester\u2019s Diet., verbum, \u201cgame.\u201d The term \u201cwild fowl\u201d means any large eatable bird of a wild nature.\nIn Jonesboro. L. C. & E. Rd. Co. v. Adams, 117 Ark. 54, 174 S. W. 527-530, we said: \u201cThe law-makers contributed to the preservation of wild ducks,\u201d by enacting a general statute, citing section 3618, Kirby\u2019s Digest.\nWhile the exact question here presented was not before us in that ease, the language above used was a correct interpretation of the statute.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. M. Carter, for appellant.", "Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Crabtree v. State.\nOpinion delivered March 20, 1916.\n1. Statutes \u2014 construction-\u2014-ejusdem generis. \u2014 The maxim \u201cejusdem generis,\u201d which may be applied to effectuate the legislative intent, will never Ibe allowed to defeat it.\n2. Game and fish \u2014 sale of \u2014 construction of statute.- \u2014 T-he general words, \u201cor. any other kind of game, wild fowl, or \u00a1birds, whatever,\u201d as used in Kirby\u2019s Digest, .\u00a7 3618, restricting the sale of game, which words follow the particular kind of game enumerated, include animals, fowls and birds of a wild nature that are fit and commonly hunted for use and food in addition to and different from those specified.\n3. Game and fish \u2014 \u2018wild fowl\u201d defined, \u2014 rThe term \"wild fowl\u201d means any large eatable ibi-rd of a wild nature.\n4. Game and fisi-i \u2014 selling wild ducks. \u2014 A conviction -of the crime of selling wild ducks may be -had under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3618.\nAppeal from Miller County Court; Geo. R. Eaynie, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJ. M. Carter, for appellant.\nThe statute does not prohibit the sale of wild ducks. Kirby\u2019s Digest \u00a7 3618. General words following specific terms ejusdem generis should be limited by reference to the specific words, and should be construed only with all other articles, things, etc., of like nature and quality, etc. 61 Ark. 502 ; 54 Ark. 611; 102 Id. 218; 101 Id. 596. The word \u201cgame\u201d does not refer to \u201cfowls.\u201d The statute makes no exception of fowls. The case in 174 S. W. 527 does, not apply here. The only question raised there was the' constitutionality of the act. But if it did tbe ruling is not sound.\nWallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.\n1. It is unlawful to sell wild ducks. \u2018 \u2018Game \u2019 \u2019 means beasts and birds of a wild nature obtained by fowling and hunting and includes quail and other wild fowls fit for food. Coke on Littleton, 233a, \u00a7 378; 8 Words and Phrases, 1023; 71 Mich. 325; Cyclopedic Diet. 404; 198 111. 258; 19 Cyc. 1450. \u201cFowl\u201d comprehends all birds and poultry, but \u201cwild fowl\u201d applies to ducks, geese,' etc. 3 Words and Phrases\u2019 2929; 11 East 574. '\nThe statute reads \u201cor any other kind of game,\u201d etc. The word \u201cother\u201d means different from that specified; not the. same. 29 Cyc. 1532; 78 Pae. 565; 35 Atl. 658; 140 Ind. 397; 6 Words and Phrases 5070.\nThe maxim ejusdem generis is applied only to effectuate the legislatve intent; not to defeat it. 48 Minn. 140; 18 Ala. 687; 116 Pa. St.; 3 Words and Phrases 2328. But our court has settled the matter. 174 S. W. 527: 103 Id. 288." }, "file_name": "0068-01", "first_page_order": 92, "last_page_order": 94 }