{ "id": 8720733, "name": "State v. Oakley", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Oakley", "decision_date": "1888-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "112", "last_page": "115", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ark. 112" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "48 Ark., 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1887732 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/48/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ark., 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Ark., 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "11 Ind., 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1486812 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/11/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Gray, 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 2093414 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/82/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 La., Ann. 1214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 322791 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/33/1214-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 La., Ann. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Mo., 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8857078 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/1/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 Mass., 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 762412 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/138/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Sneed, 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Sneed,", "case_ids": [ 11266559 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/36/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ark., 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875729 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Wis., 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8712719 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/2/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Humph., 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hum.", "case_ids": [ 11265987 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/30/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark., 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882923 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Miss., 651", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 292868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/45/0651-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ark., 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1887732 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/48/0036-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 340, "char_count": 4947, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8596921116872395e-07, "percentile": 0.724685107124006 }, "sha256": "3b60216416d083d62a7ed265c96dcb9b3eed1b0fda508720a3392fd5dcedb718", "simhash": "1:b2f56cc08e5c029a", "word_count": 846 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:57.887856+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "State v. Oakley." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Battle, J.\nAppellee was indicted in the Dallas circuit court for larceny. The property charged to be stolen is described in the indictment as \u201c two ten dollar bills of United States currency.\u201d Is this description sufficient?\nIn an indictment for larceny, as a general rule, the property taken should be described specifically by the name usually appropriated to it, to distinguish it from other property, or by a description sufficient to show 'the particular kind or species of property alleged to be stolen. It has been adjudged that the description of property stolen, as \u201cone pound of meat,\u201d was insufficient, because the term meat \u201c applies not only to the flesh of all animals used for food, but in a general sense, to all kinds of provisions.\u201d For a like reason the description, \u201ctwo ten dollar bills in United States currency,\u2019\u2019 in this case is too indefinite. For United States currency includes the gold and silver coin of the United States, the notes issued by the banks organized under the laws of the United States, the treasury notes, commonly known as greenbacks, and the certificates of deposit, generally called gold and silver certificates, issued by the United Stat\u00e9s. While it is certain that the property charged to be stolen is not gold or silver, it cannot be ascertained from the indictment what is meant, further than it was paper currency of the United States. The indictment is not aided by the statute. For no where is the stealing of United States currency eo nomine, declared by the statutes of this state to be a public offence. The description is too general, too broad, and too vague and uncertain, .and is fatally defective. Leftwich v. Com., 20 Grat., 716, 720; Boyle v. State, 37 Texas, 360; Martinez v. State, 41 Texas, 164; Merrill v. State, 45 Miss., 651; Barton v. State, 29 Ark., 68; State v. Ward, 48 Ark.. 36; State v. Longbottom, 11 Humph., 39; State v. Morey, 2 Wis., 494; 2 Bishop on Criminal Proceedure, (3rd ed.), secs. 700, 705, 731, 732.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Battle, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Dan. W. Jones, Attorney General, for state.", "R. C. Fuller, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "State v. Oakley.\nIndictment: For larceny; Description of property.\nAn indictment for larceny which describes the property charged to have been stolen, as (i two ten dollar bills of United States currency,\u201d is bad for the vagueness and uncertainty of the description.\nAPPEAL from Dallas Circuit Court.\nC. D. Wood, Judge.\nDan. W. Jones, Attorney General, for state.\nThis court in the case of State v. Parker, 34 Ark., 158, held that \u2018 \u2018 twenty-five cords of wood \u2019 \u2019 was a sufficient description of the subject of the larceny.\nFor the same reasons given in that case the description of the money in this indictment must be held sufficient.\nNo substantial right of the appellee on the merits was, or could be, prejudiced by the failure of the pleader to describe the money as greenbacks, national currency, or gold or silver certificates, all of them being of United States currency, equal in value and passing indiscriminately as money.\n. The usual acceptation, in common parlance of the words, \u201ctwo ten dollar bills of United States currency\u201d is well understood to be current paper money of the United States, and not gold or silver. Hence, we conclude the indictment is sufficiently certain, when measured by Mansfield\u2019s Digest, secs. 2107, 2120.\nThe supreme court of North Carolina held the following description to be sufficient, to-wit: \u201cOne twenty dollar bank note on the Bank of North Carolina, of the value of twenty dollars.\u201d State v. Roiit, 3 Hawk\u2019s, 618. And the supreme court of Tennessee held that \u201cten five dollar bank bills of the value of five dollars each,\u201d was -a sufficient description. Ryland v. The State, 4 Sneed, 357.\nIn Mass, \u201cdivers promissory notes of the amount and value in all of $6.00,\u201d and \u201c divers coins of the United States, current as money in said commonwealth, of the amount and of the value in all of $3.00,\u201d were held to be sufficient descriptions of the money stolen. Com. v. Collins, 138 Mass., 483; also see State v. Logan, 1 Mo., 532; State v. King,. 31 La., Ann. 179; State v. Carter, 33 La., Ann. 1214; Com. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, 240; McKane v. State, 11 Ind., 195.\nR. C. Fuller, for appellee.\nThe money alleged to have been stolen was not sufficiently described in kind.\nThe code requires every material fact necessary to constitute a public offence to be alleged in an indictment. \u201cIt dispenses with form and requires substance only. What is now substance at common law is substance under the code,\u2019\u2019 etc. Barton v. State, 29 Ark., 70.\nThe indictment must set forth the kind of United States currency stolen, otherwise it would be no bar to a subsequent indictment for the same offence. State v. Thompson, 42 Ark., 518; Russell on Crime, 2 vol., p. 185; Bishop\u2019s Criminal Proccedure, vol. 2, sec. 320.\nThe failure to describe the United States currency stolen was fatal, and the court below committed no error in sustaining the demurrer. State v. Ward, 48 Ark., 36, and authorities there cited." }, "file_name": "0112-01", "first_page_order": 164, "last_page_order": 167 }