{
  "id": 1551792,
  "name": "Holt v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holt v. State",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "225",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 Ark. 223"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "34 Ark. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875686
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/34/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ark. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1553223
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/125/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ark. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/84/0606-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 249,
    "char_count": 3729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.058019405764583185
    },
    "sha256": "251a87682b629b3b09b9049cdd77a9f5ba2ec1b05424a0f24fa5414be00ae5f8",
    "simhash": "1:ab8b55215a681d58",
    "word_count": 665
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:43:49.050580+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Holt v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nWill Holt was indicted on the 22d'day of August, 1916, by the grand jury of Howard county, Arkansas, for selling intoxicating liquors in Howard- county and State of Arkansas, on the 1st day of June, 1916.\nOn the trial of the cause, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant and assessed, his punishment in the penitentiary at one year,\nAppellant insists on a reversal of the judgment for the reason, he says, there is nothing in the record to show when or where he sold the whiskey in question, and because the court refused to give instructions 2 and 4 asked by him.\n. The court told the jury that if they believed \u201cfrom the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, in Howard county, Arkansas, since the first day of January, 1916, sold intoxicating liquors in any quantity, you will find him guilty and assess his punishment at imprisonment for one year in the State penitentiary. If you have a reasonable doubt of his guilt, you would find him not guilty.\u201d\nWill Gamble testified on the trial that he took some whiskey from the M., D. & G. depot, over to Will Holt\u2019s house, just before he was accused of making the sale. Being asked, \u201cWhen?\u201d he answered, \u201cI believe it was Thursday evening.\u201d \u201cQ. Before the sale on Saturday night?\u201d . \u201cA. Yes, sir.\u201d\nMonroe Jones, the prosecuting witness, stated that he bought one pint of whiskey from Will Holt at his house in Howard county and paid him one dollar for it.\nThere was other evidence tending to show the time and place.\nWe can not say the verdict was unsupported by the evidence.\nInstruction No. 2, asked by defendant, is as follows: \u201cThe defendant is charged with the sale of whiskey to Monroe Jones, and you are instructed that you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the sale was made; that Jones bought of the defendant the pint of -whiskey and that he paid defendant one dollar for same, before you can convict him on the indictment in this case.\u201d\nThe questions of sale and reasonable doubt were fully covered by the court\u2019s instructions. It was not error to refuse this instruction. Larimore v. State, 84 Ark. 606.\nInstruction No. 4, asked by defendant, is as follows: \u201cYou ar\u00e9 further instructed that it is not against the laws of the State of Arkansas for a person in ordering whiskey to use the name of another person in making the order, and the fact that the whiskey out of which it is alleged that this pint of whiskey was sold was ordered in the name of John Gamble, is not a crime under the laws of .the State of Arkansas.\u201d\nThe fact that appellant was ordering whiskey in Gamble\u2019s name as often as the record shows he did, was a circumstance tending to prove he was in the liquor business. The issue was, did he sell it, not in whose name he ordered it. The instruction in the form asked could only serve the purpose of diverting the minds of the jury from the real issue in the case.\nThe case was presented to the jury under proper instructions. There is evidence of a substantial character to support the verdict. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. G. Sain, for appellant.",
      "Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Holt v. State.\nOpinion delivered December 4, 1916.\nLiquor \u2014 illegal sale. \u2014 The evidence held sufficient to warrant a conviction for the crime of selling whiskey illegally.\nAppeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJ. G. Sain, for appellant.\n1. There is nothing in the record to show when or where defendant sold the whiskey.\n2. It was error to refuse instructions 2 and 4.\nWallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.\n1. The date of the sale and place was sufficiently established. 125 Ark. 47.\n2. There was no error in the court\u2019s refusal of instructions. 34 Ark. 649; 52 Id. 180; 58 Id. 472; 84 Id. 607."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 247,
  "last_page_order": 249
}