{
  "id": 1913407,
  "name": "Moore v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. State",
  "decision_date": "1889-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "265",
  "last_page": "266",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ark. 265"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Ark., 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1848207
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/2/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ark., 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721311
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/42/0093-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 2077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.568841252539176e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6783078859037728
    },
    "sha256": "83d637830111ed538a96e77695827b8f10b4815fce9b07e92cb80f230d1d0ea7",
    "simhash": "1:ee63d3d9d985c8cb",
    "word_count": 364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:40.922971+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Moore v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nNotice on Saturday to one liable to road, duty to work a road on the following Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, was not sufficient notice to work on Tuesday,, because three full days did not intervene (State v. Jones, 42 Ark., 93), but was good as to the other days.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David A. Gates, for appellant.",
      "W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Moore v. State.\n\u00a1Public Roads : Notice to attend working.\nA notice given on Saturday to attend a road working on the following Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, was not a sufficient warning to work on Tuesday\u2014 because three full days did not intervene \u2014 but was good as to the other days.\nAPPEAL from Desha Circuit Court.\nB. F. Grace, Special Judge.\n/ The appellant, Moore, was convicted upon an indictment \u2022charging that he refused to work o'n a public road after having been duly warned, as the law directs. The evidence shows that the defendant was warned on Saturday to work the road \u2022on the following Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and that he did not attend on either day. The court instructed the jury in effect that if they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant was warned on Saturday to work the road on the following Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and failed to work on either of those days, that he could not be convicted for failing to work on Tuesday, but could be convicted for such failure on Wednesday and Thursday. This instruction was objected to by the defendant. Section 59\u00b07 Mansfield\u2019s Digest, provides that any person subject to road duty who \u201c shall have had at least three days\u2019 actual notice\u201d according to law, and who refuses or neglects to attend on the day and \u2022at the place directed by the overseer, shall be fined for such \u2022offense not less than ten nor more than twenty-five dollars.\nDavid A. Gates, for appellant.\nI. No proper notice was given. Mansf. Dig., sec. 5903. There must be full three days\u2019 notice. 4.2 Ark., 93. If bad for Tuesday, it was bad for the other days, as a notice cannot be both legal and illegal.\nW. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for appellee.\nThe warning, while not good for Tuesday, was good for Wednesday and Thursday."
  },
  "file_name": "0265-01",
  "first_page_order": 293,
  "last_page_order": 294
}