{
  "id": 1569975,
  "name": "Beebe v. Judd",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beebe v. Judd",
  "decision_date": "1918-10-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "136 Ark. 22"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322337
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "236"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ark. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1314503
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "359"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/99/0236-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322337
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2937,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05869743757261524
    },
    "sha256": "3deaa041d0798399fd79ac0c76bc90e8518d20378a8cd4227eb63a2ba6d58464",
    "simhash": "1:f3356ad54b34198c",
    "word_count": 511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:26.542033+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Beebe v. Judd."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellee was tried and convicted in the mayor\u2019s court of the town of Beebe for carrying a pistol as a weapon and was fined $50. An appeal was prosecuted from the judgment of conviction to the White Circuit Court. The cause was there tried by a jury upon the charge, appellee\u2019s plea of not guilty and the evidence adduced. Upon the request of appellee, the court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The jury thereupon returned the following verdict:\n\u201cWe, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.\n\u201cC. N. Finn, Foreman.\u201d\nFrom this verdict .and judgment, an appeal has been properly prosecuted to this court.\nThe evidence showed that appellee was a brakeman on passenger trains on the Iron Mountain Railroad, running between Little Rock, Arkansas, and Poplar Bluff, a distance of 180 miles. While engaged in assisting passengers on and off the train at Beebe en route from Little Rock to Poplar Bluff, he was arrested on a warrant charging him with carrying a pistol as a weapon. A 38 caliber Smith & Wesson was found in a scabbard concealed on his person. He had some acquaintances at every station on his route.\nIt is insisted that the court erred in giving a peremptory instruction for acquittal. This is true unless the undisputed facts constitute the trip a journey in the law. Appellee defended on the ground that he was on a journey and protected by the exception contained in the statute against carrying a pistol as a weapon. Under the former adjudications of this court, it can not be said that the undisputed facts in this case show that appellee was on a journey. It was a question for a jury to determine under proper instructions. Hathcote v. State, 55 Ark. 181.\nFor the error indicated, the judgment is reversed. As jeopardy attached, the cause can not be remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. N. Rachels, for appellant.",
      "Erun\u00e9idge S Redly, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Beebe v. Judd.\nOpinion delivered October 21, 1918.\n1. Weapons \u2014 carrying upon journey. \u2014 Where a brakeman on a passenger train running a distance of 180 miles, having some acquaintances at every station on his route, carried a 38-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol concealed on his person, it was a question for the jury^whether^he was upon a journey.\n2. CriminaJlaw \u2014 jeopardy.\u2014Where the court erroneously directed a verdict for defendant in a criminal case punishable by imprisonment, the^cause, onjreversal, can not be remanded for a new trial.\nAppeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge;\nreversed.\nJ. N. Rachels, for appellant.\nIt was error to direct a verdict. Whether he was on a journey or not was a question for a jury. He was traveling his usual route and knew many people at each stopping place on his daily travel. 99 Ark. 236, 45 Id. 359; 55 Id. 181; 45 Id. 536.\nErun\u00e9idge S Redly, for appellee.\nAppellee was upon a journey within the exceptions of the statute. 55 Ark. 181; 99 Id. 236; 45 Id. 359-536. There was nothing to submit to the jury and a verdict was properly directed."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 51
}