{
  "id": 1504049,
  "name": "Bennett v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bennett v. State",
  "decision_date": "1904-12-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "386",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 Ark. 386"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1555,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.735,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.115162856034739e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5065689157939324
    },
    "sha256": "9f70296240e8daddfb1fd3fdce55a1aa330c2201216de4a92946e29c02c574aa",
    "simhash": "1:9b0c205e4cc0ed46",
    "word_count": 259
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:58:55.652140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bennett v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThe appellant was indicted and convicted of the crime of stealing a certain hog. The indictment charged that appellant \u201cdid unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away one hog of the value of $5, the goods and chattels Mose McGee,\u201d etc. A demurrer was interposed and overruled. The indictment shows that between the word \u201cchattels\u201d and the words \u201cMose McGee,\u201d there is a small blank space. The word \u201cof\u201d is omitted. But it is clear from the context what is meant, and the omission to write the word \u201cof\u201d or \u201cproperty of\u201d is a mere misprision. But the omission does not destroy the sense or meaning of the indictment. It is impossible to read the indictment without mentally supplying the omitted word, designating ownership in McGee. The demurrer was properly overruled.\nIt was not error to permit Mose McGee to testify as to his ownership of the hog. There was evidence legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no specific objection is made to the court\u2019s charge, which we find to be correct.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bennett v. State.\nOpinion delivered December 24, 1904.\nIndictment \u2014 clerical misprision. \u2014 An indictment for larceny is not bad which charges that defendant \u201cdid unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away one hog of the value of five dollars, the goods and chattels M.,\u201d omitting the word of after the word chattels, as the omission is an obvious misprision, which does not destroy the meaning.\nAppeal from Lafayette Circuit Court.\nCharles W. Smith, Judge.\nAffirmed.\nGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0386-01",
  "first_page_order": 408,
  "last_page_order": 408
}