{
  "id": 1551721,
  "name": "Rider v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rider v. State",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "501",
  "last_page": "503",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 Ark. 501"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "90 Ark. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ark. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1545347
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/94/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ark. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "577"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 A. L. R. 257",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ark. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        609407
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/65/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ark. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1548529
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/92/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881124
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0657-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 Ark. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1558162
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/122/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ark. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Humph. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hum.",
      "case_ids": [
        8543694
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/22/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Denio, 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Denio",
      "case_ids": [
        1881447
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/denio/5/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N. Y. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        512907
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/53/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark. 519",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900464
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/38/0519-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 Ark. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1551782
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/126/0260-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 2741,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.547,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8108817618226586e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7177690668452099
    },
    "sha256": "73b1616869ca493d016280e09d9c2fc73404404102f501aaa8c638033c282976",
    "simhash": "1:52befd3d05ae324b",
    "word_count": 473
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:43:49.050580+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rider v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nThis is a prosecution for alleged violation of a rule promulgated by the Board of Control of the Agricultural Station concerning cattle tick eradication, and the case is ruled by the recent (opinion of this court in Davis v. State, 126 Ark. 260, except as to the sufficiency of the information filed by the prosecuting attorney instituting the prosecution.\nIt is contended that the information is not sufficient because it merely charges 'the defendant with having refused to \u201cdip certain cattle,\u201d without alleging specifically that he refused to comply with the regulation by bringing his cattle, when ordered by the inspector, to \u201ca regular disinfecting station for the .purpose of having them properly dipped.\u201d We think that the language set forth in the information is sufficient to put the defendant upon notice as to the specific offense with which he is charged.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. A. Pettigrew, for appellant.",
      "Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.",
      "Troy Pace, of Counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rider v. State.\nOpinion delivered January 1, 1917.\nCattle tick eradication \u2014 sufficiency of information. \u2014 In a prosecution for an alleged violation of a rule promulgated by the Board of Control of the Agricultural Station concerning cattle tick eradication, held, the language set forth in the information sufficient to put defendant upon notice as to the specific offense with which he was charged.\nAppeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; James Cochran, Judge;\naffirmed.\nT. A. Pettigrew, for appellant.\n1. The information charges no crime. There is no such offense as \u201cfailing to dip cattle.\u201d Acts' 1907, \u00a7 5; and Rule 7 of Board Control. Criminal Statutes are strictly construed and no case is to be brought by construction within a statute, unless it is completely within its words. 38 Ark. 519; 53 N. Y. 511; 5 Denio, 76; 3 Humph. 483; 49 Ark. 488.\n2. The district is void for want of definite description. 122 Ark. 491. It is also void for patent ambiguity in description of the boundary. 30 Ark. 657; 40 Id. 237; 41 Id. 495; 60 Id. 487; 68 Id. 150.\n3. The penalties of Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7\u00a7 2447-8, do not apply. 92 Ark. 155. The instructions are not based on the evidence. 65 Ark. 222; 78 Id. 177; 86 Id. 109.\nWallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.\nTroy Pace, of Counsel.\n1. Under the ruling in Davis v. State, 53 A. L. R. 257, the judgment should be affirmed. All the questions raised are settled there except the sufficiency of the information.\n2. The information was sufficient; it sets \"forth every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute an offense. 102 Ark. 454; 98 Id. 577; 94 Id. 65; 95 Id. 48; 84 Id. 487, etc.; Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7\u00a7 2228, 2243; 94 Ark. 578.\n3. Misnaming the offense is of no consequence. 90 Ark. 599; 7,7 Id. 480; 71 Id. 80; 36 Id. 242; 34 Id. 275; 102 Id. 655."
  },
  "file_name": "0501-01",
  "first_page_order": 525,
  "last_page_order": 527
}