{
  "id": 1894517,
  "name": "Stout v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stout v. State",
  "decision_date": "1884-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "413",
  "last_page": "416",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ark. 413"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 Hill, 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hill,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ark., 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1897160
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/40/0097-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 3850,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.5569732873812715e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8855969981261456
    },
    "sha256": "ac9aa6461238be27dc5d411baac860408cd953810222dc717a3ceb3b150b2f1a",
    "simhash": "1:49f975efb42bb7e0",
    "word_count": 669
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:37.449042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stout v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nStout was charged with giving awav intoxica- \" , . . . , ting liquors in his school district on the day of the annual school meeting, at which a director was to be chosen. After a demurrer to the indictment was overruled, he was convicted aud fined $200. The testimony showed that on said day he gave a man, at his request, a drink of whisky, after the polls were closed. He was not the owner or keeper of a drinking saloon. A motion in arrest of judgment was also denied.\nThe statute that was supposed to be violated is the 22d section of the general election law of January 23, 1875, This provides that \u201call dram-shops or drinking-houses in any county, city, town, or township shall be closed during the day of any election held therein, and the succeeding night, and any person selling or giving away any intoxicating liquors during said day or night, in any county, city, town or township in which any such election may be held, shall be punished by fine, &c.\u201d\nPenal statutes, in declaring what acts shall constitute an offence, and in prescribing the punishment to be inflicted, are to be construed rigorously. \u201cThe general words shall be restrained tor the benefit ol him against whom the penalty is inflicted.\u201d The case of an offender must fall both within the words and the mischiefs to be remedied. Potter\u2019s Dwarris on Statutes, 245; Grace v. State, 40 Ark., 97.\nThe annual school meeting which is provided for by sections 54-5-6 of the Common School\u2019s Act of December 9, 1875, is not an election within the meaning of the above quoted act. Each school district is by law a quasi corporation. The corporators, who are the qualified electors residing within the district, meet at 2 P. M., of the day fixed for meeting, five constituting a quorum, elect a director, vote a tax, transact other school business, and then, adjourn. Ballots are used in determining the choice of a director and the rate of taxation to be voted. But it is no more an election within the contemplation of the statute than the appointment of a city clerk or attorney by the council of a city, or the election of presiding and other officers by the two Houses of the Genera] Assembly,\nReversed and remanded with directions to arrest the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert J. Howard, for appellant.",
      "O. B. Moore, Att\u2019y Gen\u2019l, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Stout v. State.\n1. Liquor. Selling or giving on election day.\nThe provision of the general election law of Jan\u2019y 23,1875, against giving away or selling intoxicating liquor on election day does not apply to an election for a school director at an annual school meeting provided for by the common schools act of 1875,\nAPPEAL from Conway Circuit Court.\nHon. G-. S. Cunningham, Circuit Judge.\nRobert J. Howard, for appellant.\nThe \u201cannual school meeting of the district\u201d is not an election within the meaning of the law. Statutes in declaring what acts shall constitute an offense and in prescribing the punishment to be inflicted, are to be construed rigorously. 6 Hill, 616.\nSchool districts are bodies corporate, quasi municipal corporations. In selecting directors, the electors hold a \u201cpublic meeting,\u201d choose a chairman and vote for directors, as citizens choose deacons, vestrymen, bank directors, &c., which being completed, they adjourn. The 22d section of the Greneral Election Law does not opply to these \u201cmeetings,\u201d but only to elections heldunder the act Jan\u2019y 22d, 1875. Acts, p. 92, Secs. 1 to 45.\nO. B. Moore, Att\u2019y Gen\u2019l, contra.\nThe election for school directors under Act Dec., 7, 1875, Secs. 54-58, pp. 72-3, is such an election as is contemplated by Sec. 22, Act Jan. 23, 1875, Acts, 1874 5, p. 97. The language is \u201cany election\u201d.\nThe school election is held with judges and clerks, returns made, &c., and Sec. 56 school law provides that the election shall be held according to the general election law. I see no good reason why the provision in relation to dram shops, &c., should not apply."
  },
  "file_name": "0413-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 440
}