{
  "id": 1691623,
  "name": "Gordon v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gordon v. State",
  "decision_date": "1961-03-13",
  "docket_number": "5010",
  "first_page": "256",
  "last_page": "259",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "233 Ark. 256"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "343 S.W.2d 780"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "206 S. W. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ark. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1569972
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/136/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S. W. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1911691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/53/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ark. 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879326
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/31/0039-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 335,
    "char_count": 5020,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06388712237663277
    },
    "sha256": "07a5a21186b6ccc1ee7f4e4cf315360b1b1e737a9e1140602d64c4270fcd462e",
    "simhash": "1:d7e21e31ef7fda4f",
    "word_count": 891
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:46.694457+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gordon v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sam Robinson, Associate Justice.\nAppellant, John M. Gordon, who was at the time County Judge of Polk County, was convicted, fined $200 and removed from office on a charge that be paid an excessive price for two road grader tires, in violation of Ark. Stats., \u00a7 17-706.\nWe reach only one question, and that is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. Our conclusion is that it is not sufficient. The evidence shows that Judge Gordon bought from Murry Johnson Service Station two Pennsylvania \u201cNylon Patrol\u201d tires for $235 each. The State introduced evidence to the effect that the County could have bought other tires of an equal grade and quality for $175.69, and could have bought tires of like quality, only in 16-ply instead of 12-ply, for $193.77. It does not appear, however, that any tire dealer ever gave Gordon information that the tires could be bought for less than the County was paying for them. Of course, the amount paid to Johnson was a matter of public record, and anyone could easily ascertain just what the County was paying for tires.\nEven if, as contended by the State, Ark. Stats., \u00a7 17-706 makes it unlawful to pay more than the customary price for materials furnished, there is no showing that appellant paid more than the customary price for the tires. In fact, there does not appear to be such a thing as a regular or customary fixed price in the tire business. All kinds of price lists are put out by the tire companies. There is a \u201csuggested price list\u201d published by one tire company that shows a price of $367.75 each for tires like the ones in issue (Judge Gordon paid $235 each for the tires). Then there is another price list, published by the same company, that prices the same tire at $297.85. This is called the \u201ccode price\u201d. There is still another listing of the same tire in what is called the \u201cconfidential net State prices.\u201d This list gives a price of $175.59. Another State\u2019s witness who is a tire dealer testified that he had various price lists \u2014 one list showing a price of $193.77; another, $344.24; and still another list showing a price of $424.00 \u2014 all on the same tire. In speaking of the various price lists, the witness testified: \u201cYou have to be in the tire business to know exactly what that means. I couldn\u2019t tell you so that you could understand it.\u201d\nIt appears that this prosecution came about by the fact that Judge Gordon paid $235 for tires that perhaps could have been bought for $175 if he had been sufficiently skillful in bargaining to have obtained tires at that price. It seems that this was the \u201cconfidential State price\u201d, but Johnson, from whom appellant purchased the tires, testified that he never saw the \u201cconfidential State price list\u201d and that he would not sell tires at that price; that if the tires were sold at that price the dealer would make only 5% and that he could not stay in business by making a gross profit of only 5%. The price list which the undisputed evidence shows that Judge Gordon saw showed the price of the tires that he bought to be $384.45. He bought the tires for $235, which certainly appears to be cheap for the tires based on a regular price of $384.45.\nIn State v. Prescott, 31 Ark. 39, the county judge was charged with unlawfully granting a license to operate a saloon. This Court said: \u201cThe jury were not warranted in inferring corrupt motives from the fact that appellee erred, but it was incumbent on the State to show by other facts and circumstances in connection with his errors, that he erred willfully with corrupt motives.\u201d\nIn Casey v. State, 53 Ark. 334, 14 S. W. 90, a county judge was convicted for nonfeasance in office for allowing a county claim to which no affidavit was attached. In reversing the judgment this Court said it was not probable that the legislature intended to punish a casual and unintended omission to do the act in a proper manner, and in Bromley v. State, 136 Ark. 270, 206 S. W. 436, the county judge was convicted of misfeasance in office. The Court said: \u201cThe testimony adduced on behalf of the State, at most, only tended to show that the appellant negligently allowed an account against the county in a greater sum perhaps, than should have been allowed. . . . The jury was not authorized under the law of the above statute to find the appellant guilty unless they found that the act charged was willfully done.\u201d\nWe think the rule applied in the above cases should control in the case at bar, that is to say, that before a conviction can be sustained on a charge of violating Ark. Stats., \u00a7 17-706, there must be some showing of a willful violation of the statute inferring corrupt motives. There is not a scintilla of evidence in the case at bar indicating willful violation of the statute or corrupt motives. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sam Robinson, Associate Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald Poe, for appellant.",
      "J. Frank Holt, Attorney General, by Sam H. Boyce, Asst. Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gordon v. State.\n5010\n343 S. W. 2d 780\nOpinion delivered March 13, 1961.\nDonald Poe, for appellant.\nJ. Frank Holt, Attorney General, by Sam H. Boyce, Asst. Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0256-01",
  "first_page_order": 278,
  "last_page_order": 281
}