{
  "id": 1879246,
  "name": "Dormar vs. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dormar v. State",
  "decision_date": "1876-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "49",
  "last_page": "50",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ark. 49"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 1853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9311942536286233e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7342397182229543
    },
    "sha256": "3145883ac03f3f4383eeb562af7bc13ba9ecdb76d07c0eae0812943942ca1442",
    "simhash": "1:c915ef59435cfae2",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:38:42.897988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dormar vs. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harrison, J.:\nThe appellant, John Dormar, was tried upon an indictment For failure of duty as road overseer, and convicted. He moved for a new trial, on the ground that the conviction was not warranted by the evidence; and his motion being overruled, he excepted and appealed.\nThe indictment charges that being overseer of \u201c section (3) three of the Mount Elba and Monticello road, extending from Blakey\u2019s creek to the Lincoln County line,\u201d the same being a public road, he failed to keep said road in good repair, etc.\nThere was no evidence that such road as that described in the indictment, was in the defendant\u2019s district. All the witnesses testified that section three of Mount Elba and Monticello road, of which the defendant was overseer, extended from Blakey\u2019s creek to the Drew County line, and they knew of no road extending from said creek to the Lincoln County line.\nThe words of the indictment:\n\u201c Extending from Blakey\u2019s creek to the Lincoln County line,\u201d \u25a0 were an essential part of the description of the road. Greenleaf says: \u201cAny allegation which narrows and limits that which is essential, is necessai'ily descriptive.\u201d 1 Green Ev., sec. 58, and all the circumstances of the description must be proven. Ib., sec. 65 ; 1 Phil. Ev. 834 ; Whart, Cr. L., sec. 602; 2 Russ, cr., 801.\nThe defendant should have been acquitted ; and it was error to overrule his motion for a new trial.\nThe judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded that the defendant may have a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harrison, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hughes, Att\u2019y Gen\u2019l for State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dormar vs. The State.\n\u25a0 Indictment: Against road overseer. What is essential, etc.\nIn an indictment against an overseer of a road for failure to keep the same in repair, the description of the road is material, and must be proved as alleged.\nAPPEAL from Dorsey Circuit Court.\nHon. J. R. S. Burbridge, Special Judge.\nHughes, Att\u2019y Gen\u2019l for State."
  },
  "file_name": "0049-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 50
}