{
  "id": 1390022,
  "name": "Perkins v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Perkins v. State",
  "decision_date": "1931-01-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1167",
  "last_page": "1169",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ark. 1167"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "29 S. W. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ark. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1903677
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/60/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 S. W. 1138",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ark. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720961
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/119/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ark. 1169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 S. W. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 Mo. 814",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Nev. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Nev.",
      "case_ids": [
        8577622
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nev/42/0218-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 4806,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29581666730376943
    },
    "sha256": "4cb0093510626b5c7eb61b14b79d5d74e870ce622862299e0fc6afe9f1c2cc3b",
    "simhash": "1:9abf42e193e6bc84",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:23.350304+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Perkins v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith., J.\nAppellant wafi convicted under an indictment charging him with the crime of grand larceny, and he seeks by this appeal only to question the sufficiency of the indictment under which he wa,s tried. The indictment alleges that he stole \u201ctwo animals of the cattle kind, the property of 'Cratus Sterlin. \u2019 \u2019 The property alleged to have been stolen was not otherwise described, and it is earnestly insisted that this description is insufficient, for the reason that, if defendant were again tried for the larceny of these animals under a more particular and sufficiently definite description he could not plead the conviction under this indictment as a bar to that prosecution, for the reason that the indictment describes nothing definitely. It is also insisted that the description of the property alleged to have been stolen is too vague and indefinite for defendant to properly prepare his defense.\nWe are cited to the definition of the word \u201ccattle\u201d appearing in Webster's New International Dictionary, which reads: \u201c'Collectively, live animals held for property or raised for some use, now usually confined to quadrupeds of the (bovine family, but sometimes including all domestic quadrupeds, as sheep, goats, horses, mules, asses and swine. Also, formerly, rarely used as a singular for beast, ox.\u201d\nWe are cited also to other definitions of the word \u201ccattle,\u201d which include all domestic quadrupeds, as sheep, goats, horses, mules, asses, and swine, but such is not the meaning of the word \u201ccattle\u201d as employed in our statute on the subject of the larceny of cattle. It reads as follows: \u201cEvery'person who shall mark, steal or kill, or wound, with intent to steal, any kind of cattle, pigs, hogs, sheep, or goats, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for any time not less than one year nor more than five years.\u201d Section 2490, >C. & M. Digest.\nWe have'a statute on the subject of the larceny of horses, etc., which reads as follows: \u201cWhoever shall be convicted of stealing any horse, mare, gelding, filly, foal, mule, ass or jennet shall be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary not less than one nor more than fifteen years.\u201d Section 2491, \u20ac. & Lf. Digest.\nThe word \u201ccattle\u201d could not, therefore, be said to include horses,, mules, etc., within the meaning of our statute, for the reason that a different and a higher punishment is prescribed for the larceny of the latter than is prescribed for the larceny of the former. The word \u201ccattle,\u201d as it appears in \u00a7 2490, does not include pigs, hogs, sheep or goats, for those animals are separately named as the subjects; of larceny, made felonies, without regard to value, after the word \u201ccattle\u201d has been employed. We are therefore of the opinion that the word \u201ccattle,\u201d as appearing in \u00a7 2490, O. & M. Digest, means animals of the bovine species.\nIn the .case of State v. Esser, 42 Nev. 218, 174 Pac. 1023, the defendant was charged with the crime of grand larceny, alleged to have been committed by stealing nine head of cattle, the property of another person. In an opinion which held the indictment sufficient, the Supreme Court of Nevada construed the word \u201ccattle,\u201d appearing in the grand larceny statute of that State, to embrace cows, bulls, and steers of the domesticated bovine genus. After a review of a number of cases, the court held that the word \u201ccattle\u201d as generally used in the Western States,'means neat cattle, straight-backed, domesticated animals of the bovine genus, regardless of sex, and includes cows, bulls and steers, but not horses, mares, geldings, colts, mules, jacks or jennies, goats, hogs, sheep, shoats, or pigs.\nIn the case of State v. DeWitt, 152 Mo. 814, 53 S. W. 429, the Supreme Court of Missouri held an indictment sufficient charging the taking of \u201ctwo head of neat cattle, \u2019 \u2019 as being in the language of the statute.\nIn the case of Bell v. State, 175 Ark. 1169, 1 S. W. (2d series) 1006, we held an indictment sufficient which charged the larceny of \u201cone certain \u2018yearling,\u2019 the property of Joe Allen,\u201d and in so holding we said that \u201cin common parlance, or in the vernacular of this State, we know that the word \u2018yearling\u2019 refers to an animal of the cow kind one year old, or in the second year of its age.\u201d See also, State v. Haller, 119 Ark. 503, 177 S. W. 1138 ; State v. Gooch, 60 Ark. 218, 29 S. W. 640.\nThe indictment in the instant case is in the language of the statute, and we hold is sufficient to charge the larceny ..of two animals of the bovine genus, and therefore sufficient, and, as no other question is raised, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith., J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. M. Shinn and W. F. Reeves, for appellant.",
      "Ilal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Perkins v. State.\nOpinion delivered January 26, 1931.\nJ. M. Shinn and W. F. Reeves, for appellant.\nIlal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1167-01",
  "first_page_order": 1187,
  "last_page_order": 1189
}