{
  "id": 1475740,
  "name": "Evans v. Hunter",
  "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. Hunter",
  "decision_date": "1945-10-29",
  "docket_number": "4-7779",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "235",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ark. 234"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "189 S.W.2d 913"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2179,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30870989003606003
    },
    "sha256": "efebed836c79c1b647a28b4c1fde19aa1b56010f6d9707aa7d72a1348f8b24f6",
    "simhash": "1:7a0c0c7f6b7abab2",
    "word_count": 378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:59.179776+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Evans v. Hunter."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McHaney, J.\nThis is an appeal from the order and judgment of. the circuit court, affirming the order of the county court which called a local option election in Van Bur\u00e9n county to vote upon the question whether intoxicating liquors, as defined by \u00a7 1 of Initiated Act No. 1, adopted by a vote of the people at the general election in November, 1942, and printed in Acts of 1943 at p. 998, should be manufactured or sold in Van Bur\u00e9n county.\nThe single question presented for our determination, as stated by appellant is: \u201cWas the judgment and order of the court responsive to the demands set out in the petitions !\u201d\nThe petitions, of which there were a number of duplicates, prayed the court to call an election \u201cto determine whether or not license shall be granted for the manufacture or sale, or the bartering, loaning or giving away, intoxicating liquors within Van Bur\u00e9n county,\u201d etc. The order of the county court, as also that of the'circuit court on appeal, omitted the word \u201cmanufacture\u201d as set out in said petition, but in that part of both orders giving directions to the election commissioners as to the preparation of ballots to be used at said election, both courts said: \u201cThe said election commissioners have printed upon said ballots the following: .\u2018For the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors. Against the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors.\u2019 \u201d\nWhen w\u00e9 consider the whole order or judgment of each court, we think there was a substantial, if not a literal compliance with said act and was responsive to said petition. In other words, that there was no variance between the orders as a whole and the petition.\nFurthermore, appellant is a retailer of liquor and not a manufacturer and there might be some doubt as to his right to question the orders, which, in the first instance omitted the word \u201cmanufacture\u201d as one of the questions to be submitted to a vote, since it does not affect him. Be that as it may, the court orders were responsive to the prayer of the petition.\nThe judgment is, therefore, affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McHaney, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. F. Reeves, for appellant.",
      "Opie Rogers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Evans v. Hunter.\n4-7779\n189 S. W. 2d 913\nOpinion delivered October 29, 1945.\nW. F. Reeves, for appellant.\nOpie Rogers, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 251
}