Mathews v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Mathews v. State

104 S.W. 928, 84 Ark. 73, 1907 Ark. LEXIS 155

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 7, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 104 S.W. 928 (Mathews 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

Mathews v. State, 104 S.W. 928, 84 Ark. 73, 1907 Ark. LEXIS 155 (Ark. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Battue, J.

Fred Mathews was indicted by the grand jury of -Franklin County, at the February (1907) term of the circuit court of that county, for the Ozark District, for seduction. He pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted, and appealed to this court.

In the bill of exceptions in this case, after the statement of the testimony of witnesses, it is said: “This is not all the evidence introduced in the case. The evidence introduced was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.” We are precluded by this statement from inquiring into the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury; all the evidence adduced at the trial not being before this court.

The appellee, by its Attorney General, confesses that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, at the request of appellant, as follows: “If you find from the evidence in this case that the sexual intercourse was had prior to any promise of marriage, if you find a promise of marriage was ever made, then the defendant is not guilty, and you should acquit.” This request and sixteen others for instructions were made by the appellant, and were refused by the court, at the same time, and he excepted to the refusal collectively. As one or more of the requests and the instructions thereby asked were bad, none of them can lawfully be considered on appeal. Young v. Stevenson, 75 Ark. 181; Kansas City Sou. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 80 Ark. 528, 535.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Battue, J.

Fred Mathews was indicted by the grand jury of -Franklin County, at the February (1907) term of the circuit court of that county, for the Ozark District, for seduction. He pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted, and appealed to this court.

In the bill of exceptions in this case, after the statement of the testimony of witnesses, it is said: “This is not all the evidence introduced in the case. The evidence introduced was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.” We are precluded by this statement from inquiring into the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury; all the evidence adduced at the trial not being before this court.

The appellee, by its Attorney General, confesses that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, at the request of appellant, as follows: “If you find from the evidence in this case that the sexual intercourse was had prior to any promise of marriage, if you find a promise of marriage was ever made, then the defendant is not guilty, and you should acquit.” This request and sixteen others for instructions were made by the appellant, and were refused by the court, at the same time, and he excepted to the refusal collectively. As one or more of the requests and the instructions thereby asked were bad, none of them can lawfully be considered on appeal. Young v. Stevenson, 75 Ark. 181; Kansas City Sou. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 80 Ark. 528, 535.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.W. 928, 84 Ark. 73, 1907 Ark. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathews-v-state-ark-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack