Junior v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Junior v. State

89 S.W. 467, 76 Ark. 483, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 115

DecidedOctober 7, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.W. 467 (Junior v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Junior v. State, 89 S.W. 467, 76 Ark. 483, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 115 (Ark. 1905).

Pincite

Opinions

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The ruling of tl court was correct. The conviction of Ware of the crime of pet larceny was not shown by the record itself or a certified cop thereof. The attempt to identify the record in the manner indicated was insufficient. The successor of the'justice of the peace before whom the alleged conviction was had was the custodian •of the record (Kirby’s Digest, § 4546), and the proper one to indentify same. It could not be done by secondary evidence, without laying the foundation therefor, which was not done in this case. No reason was given why the magistrate who rendered the alleged judgment, or his successor in office, was not present to identify the record. Secondary proof was not proper until this was done.

The proof offered to establish the record in this case was incompetent.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The ruling of tl court was correct. The conviction of Ware of the crime of pet larceny was not shown by the record itself or a certified cop thereof. The attempt to identify the record in the manner indicated was insufficient. The successor of the'justice of the peace before whom the alleged conviction was had was the custodian •of the record (Kirby’s Digest, § 4546), and the proper one to indentify same. It could not be done by secondary evidence, without laying the foundation therefor, which was not done in this case. No reason was given why the magistrate who rendered the alleged judgment, or his successor in office, was not present to identify the record. Secondary proof was not proper until this was done.

The proof offered to establish the record in this case was incompetent.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.W. 467, 76 Ark. 483, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/junior-v-state-ark-1905.