{
  "id": 1900481,
  "name": "Robinson v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1882-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "548",
  "last_page": "549",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ark. 548"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1918,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0275829899152844e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5471218592280863
    },
    "sha256": "268b3f369ade9951a02df7d7047deda44ebc3c3a9ef24bcd33ca1e92f164d121",
    "simhash": "1:be5f6cf259d280e1",
    "word_count": 326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:01.048516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robinson v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eakin, J.\nThe indictment in this case was not good, and the demurrer should have been sustained. The courts, judicially know, that the twelfth day of November, 1880, was a Friday.\nIt was not a misdemeanor for a licensed vendor to sell whisky on that day. The charging part of the indictment should have shown that on some Sunday, he did the act constituting the offense, although the particular Sunday was not important. The designation of the crime in the commencement, is merely prefatory, and to be valid, must be suppoi\u2019ted by the charging portion. It is not charged that defendant sold liquor on any Sunday at all.\nReverse and hold for naught.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eakin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. B. Moore, Attorney General, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robinson v. State.\n1. Judicial Notice : Of a day of the week or month.\nThe courts take judicial notice of tlie day of the week a certain day of tbe month came on.\n2. Sabbath Breaking- : Indictment for.\nThe charging part of an indictment for Sabbath breaking must show that the offense was committed on some Sunday, though the particular Sunday is not important:\nERROR to Pope Circuit Court.\nHon. W. D. Jacoway, Circuit Judge.\nSTATEMENT.\nIndictment in the Pope Circuit Court, against Henry Robinson, for Sabbath breaking; charging that \u201cthe said Henry Robinson, on the twelfth day of November, 1880, in the county and State aforesaid, unlawfully did sell one pint of ardent liquor against the peace,\u201d etc.\nA demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and after trial and conviction, the defendant brought the case to this court by appeal.\nO. B. Moore, Attorney General, appellant.\nIt is sufficient that the indictment charge the offense as having been committed at a date previous to the finding of the indictment. Gantt\u2019s Dig., secs. 1618, 1781; Bridges v. State, 37 Arts., 224. It does not specifically charge that * \u2018the twelfth day of November, 1880,\u201d was the \u201cSabbath day,\u201d but it does charge defendant with \u201cSabbath breaking,\u201d by sale of \u201cone pint of liquor,\u201d etc."
  },
  "file_name": "0548-01",
  "first_page_order": 546,
  "last_page_order": 547
}