{
  "id": 1892034,
  "name": "Gazola v. State of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gazola v. State",
  "decision_date": "1885-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 Ark. 458"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "43 Ark., 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1894429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/43/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.78425230904673e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4152097284436274
    },
    "sha256": "4e509151bb5255b6c276a86109dac30cddb7be2bc1873c4e520a49e273fb001b",
    "simhash": "1:b34aca6082359d5b",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:56.621202+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gazola v. State of Arkansas."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockrill, C. J.\nThe appellant was convicted of a violation of the local option liquor law. His appeal questions the sufficiency of the indictment under which the conviction was obtained.\nThe indictment charges that the appellant did sell \u201cone quart of whisky within three miles of the church-house and schools in the town of Brinkley,\u201d the county court having prohibited, as was alleged, the sale or giving away of intoxicating liquor \u201cwithin said limits.\u201d\nIf the indictment had charged that the prohibited limit was within a radius of three miles of the church and school house in the town of Brinkley, it would then be apparent that but one point of beginning was intended. But in the form in which the charge stands, it cannot be inferred that the locality of the church and schools is identical. The natural inference is that more than two points are intended..\nIn Bailey v. State, 43 Ark., 150, approving Williams v. Citizens, 40 Ib., 290, an indictment under this act was held insufficient, because it undertook to designate two points as the center of the circumscribed district. The decision in that case controls this.\nLet the judgment be reversed, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the indictment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockrill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lecil Bobo for Appellant.",
      "Dan W. Jones, Attorney General, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gazola v. State of Arkansas.\n1. Liquor: Local option district: Two centers.\nAn order of the county court, under the local option law, forbidding the sale of liquor \u201cwithin three miles of the church-house and schools\u201d in a town, is void for designating more than one point as the center of the district.\nERROR to Monroe Circuit Court.\nHon. M. T. Sanders, Circuit Judge.\nLecil Bobo for Appellant.\nNo particular church or school-house was mentioned in the order, and the proof showed there were several in the town and neighborhood. There cannot be two or more centers within a circumscribed area. 4J Ark., 150. The order was void.\nDan W. Jones, Attorney General, contra.\nIt is unnecessary to name the particular church, if it be apparent that the radius is to be from one center. \u20210 Ark., 290; 4-3 Id-> I5\u00b0-"
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 472,
  "last_page_order": 473
}