{
  "id": 1499139,
  "name": "Harrington v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harrington v. State",
  "decision_date": "1906-01-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "480",
  "last_page": "481",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 Ark. 480"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 Ark. 8036",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ark. 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1507781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/71/0080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/36/0242-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3796,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.712,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1652030757840607e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5849671158434333
    },
    "sha256": "befaca5b15b7e2728fa1a51a5dd86785377ec6977152c569ff719a067be84713",
    "simhash": "1:21689080a9bd8b8d",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:56.426688+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harrington v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) The naming of the offense \u201cSabbath breaking,\u201d instead of \u201cselling intoxicating liquor without license,\u201d was inaccurate. But this mistake did not vitiate 'the indictment, since the \u201cparticular offense was made distinct and certain by the statement of the facts constituting it.\u201d Johnson v. State, 36 Ark. 242. \u201cThe name of the crime is controlled by the specific acts charged.\u201d State v. Culbreath, 71 Ark. 80. That appellant was fully advised of the crime and understood it is shown by his plea of \u201cnot guilty to selling liquor without license.\u201d\nThe evidence was sufficient here to support the verdict. No objection is urged to the charge of the court. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on the ground of \u201cnewly discovered evidence.\u201d True, the evidence was important, as tending to corroborate evidence at the trial tending to show that the cider was not intoxicating, and.that appellant did not sell same in November as alleged. Appellant contends that he could not have known of this evidence until the time of the sale was revealed at the trial. But he did not ask for a postponement or a continuance of the case when the time was revealed during the trial. He did not claim to be surprised then.\nThe whole matter was within the sound discretion of the court, which it has not abused.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harrington v. State.\nOpinion delivered January 20, 1906.\n1. Indictment \u2014 Error in name oe oeeense charged. \u2014 An indictment is not defective which names the offense as \u201cSabbath breaking,\u201d but alleges specifically the offense of selling liquor without license. (Page 481.)\n2. New triad \u2014 newdy discovered evidence. \u2014 A new trial will not be granted on the ground of additional evidence discovered at the trial if appellant did not ask for a postponement or continuance of the case when the evidence was discovered. (Page 481.)\nAppeal from Mississippi Circuit Court; Aleen N. Hughes, Judge;\naffirmed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nAppellant was convicted of the crime of selling liquor without license, on the following indictment:\n\u201cThe grand jury of Mississippi County, Chickasawba District, in the name and. by the authority of the State of Arkansas, accuse C. W. Harrington of the crime of \u201cSabbath breaking,\u201d committed as follows, towit: The said C. W. Harrington, iii the county and 'State aforesaid, Chicasawba District, on th\u00e9 1st day of January, 1905, A. D., did unlawfully sell and unlawfully did give away, and was unlawfully interested in the selling and giving away of ardent, vinous, malt, fermented and intoxicating liquors without first procuring from the county court of said county a license authorizing him so to do, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.\u201d\nAppellant demurred to the indictment \u201cfor the reason that it contains charges of two separate offenses which are repugnant to each other.\u201d\nThe demurrer was overruled. The appellant then entered a plea of \u201cnot guilty to the charge of selling liquor without license.\u201d\nThe evidence for the State tended to show that in the month of November, 1904, appellant sold cider to a certain witness that intoxicated him.\nThere was evidence on behalf of appellant tending to prove that the cider was not sold by appellant during the month of November, and also evidence tending to show that the cider sold to the prosecuting witness was not intoxicating.\nThe verdict fixed the fine at $50. Judgment was entered accordingly.\nAppellant, pro se.\nThe indictment was bad, in that it charges two separate ..offenses not related one to the other. Motion for new trial should have been granted because of newly discovered evidence.\nRobert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.\nThe particular offense was described in. the body of the indictment. 71 Ark. 8036 Ark. 242. ."
  },
  "file_name": "0480-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}