{
  "id": 1507815,
  "name": "Halliburton v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Halliburton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1903-07-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "474",
  "last_page": "475",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ark. 474"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ark. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        609307
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/65/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727673
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/10/0299-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2889,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05637336385248715
    },
    "sha256": "5e2ad23b87043501b9f8d43683534a8b0440d54162c61ac41e59c54f188efd58",
    "simhash": "1:65c946a23da2dc2f",
    "word_count": 495
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:48.196038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Halliburton v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bunn, C. J.\nThis is an indictment for Sabbath breaking, heard and determined in the Clark circuit court, August term, 1902. Verdict of guilty, and judgment accordingly, from which the defendant appealed to this court duly and in due time.\nThe indictment is as follows, to-wit: \u201cThe grand jurors of the state of Arkansas, duly selected, impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire in and for the body of the county of Clark, in the state of Arkansas, on oath present that one W. H. Halliburton, late of said county, on the 31st day of August, 1902, said day being the Sunday or Christian Sabbath, did unlawfully make sale of a bill of drugs, and take and make orders for same, contrary to the form of the statute, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas.\u201d\nThe statute upon which the foregoing indictment was founded is as follows, to-wit: \u201cEvery person who shall, on the Sabbath or Sunday, be found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor, or to perform other services than customary household duties or daily necessity, comfort or charity, on conviction thereof shall be fined one dollar for each separate offense.\u201d\nA controlling question in this ease is, does the indictment negative the exceptions named in the statutes, and this question is raised by the general demurrer. That exceptions named in the clause of the statute creating the offense must be negatived in the indictment is well settled; Brittin v. State, 10 Ark. 299; Matthews v. State, 24 Ib. 484; Wilson v. State, 33 Ib. 557; Wilson v. State, 35 Ib. 414; State v. Bailey, 43 Ib. 150; State v. Railroad, 54 Ib. 546; State v. Scarlett, 38 Ib. 563; Thompson v. State, 38 Ib. 408; Bone v. State, 18 Ib. 109.\nThe particular question then is, does the allegation in the indictment], \u201cdid unlawfully make sale of a bill of drugs and take and make orders for same\u201d on the Sabbath day, necessarily imply a denial of the charge that the sale was made through necessity, charity or for comfort? A majority of the court are of the opinion that it does not, and that therefore the indictment is fatally defective.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bunn, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J ohn E. Bradley, for appellant.",
      "George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Halliburton v. State.\nOpinion delivered July 6, 1903.\nIndictment \u2014 -Sabbath Breaking \u2014 Negativing Exceptions. \u2014 Under Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 1887, providing that \u201cevery person who shall, on the Sabhath or Sunday, he found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or to perform other services than customary household duties, of daily necessity, comfort or charity, on conviction thereof shall he fined,\u201d etc., an indictment which fails to negative the exceptions in the statute is had.\nAppeal from Clark Circuit Court.\nJoel D. Conway, Judge.\nReversed.\nJ ohn E. Bradley, for appellant.\nGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee.\nThe act charged is a complete offense. Clark, Cr. Law, 153, 270; Sand. & H. Dig. 2090; 65 Ark. 559; 58 Ark. 10."
  },
  "file_name": "0474-01",
  "first_page_order": 492,
  "last_page_order": 493
}