Moore v. Campbell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Moore v. Campbell

109 S.W. 544, 85 Ark. 581, 1908 Ark. LEXIS 576

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 6, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 S.W. 544 (Moore v. Campbell) 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

Moore v. Campbell, 109 S.W. 544, 85 Ark. 581, 1908 Ark. LEXIS 576 (Ark. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood; J.,

(after stating the facts.) This court, in the recent case of Williams v. State, ante p. 465, held that the statute under ryhich the ordinance was passed under which the appellant was convicted was valid. That case rules this so far as the validity of the ordinance is concerned.

The petition and response thereto, with the exhibits including the commitment, show that appellant was a hotel keeper, and was convicted and committed for the crime of drumming or soliciting patrons for his hotel “on the platform of the railroad station in the city of Hot Springs.” It is contended that “drumming on the platform of railroad stations” is not an offense prohibited by the ordinance which prevents drumming or soliciting, etc., on trains, “depots,” etc. But the word “depot,” used in the ordinance, is broad enough and was intended to include, not only the depot building, but the platforms and grounds connected therewith and used by the company for its business purposes with the public at the depot or station. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Rose, 24 Ohio St. 219; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Thornsberry, 17 S. W. 521-523. See also State v. Ind. & I. S. Rd. Co., 32 N. E. 817, 133 Ind. 69, 18 L. R. A. 562.

The commitment was sufficient to authorize the holding of appellant, and was susceptible of amendment on the facts shown to correspond with the proof as to crime for which appellant was convicted.

The decree is affirmed.

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

Wood; J.,

(after stating the facts.) This court, in the recent case of Williams v. State, ante p. 465, held that the statute under ryhich the ordinance was passed under which the appellant was convicted was valid. That case rules this so far as the validity of the ordinance is concerned.

The petition and response thereto, with the exhibits including the commitment, show that appellant was a hotel keeper, and was convicted and committed for the crime of drumming or soliciting patrons for his hotel “on the platform of the railroad station in the city of Hot Springs.” It is contended that “drumming on the platform of railroad stations” is not an offense prohibited by the ordinance which prevents drumming or soliciting, etc., on trains, “depots,” etc. But the word “depot,” used in the ordinance, is broad enough and was intended to include, not only the depot building, but the platforms and grounds connected therewith and used by the company for its business purposes with the public at the depot or station. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Rose, 24 Ohio St. 219; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Thornsberry, 17 S. W. 521-523. See also State v. Ind. & I. S. Rd. Co., 32 N. E. 817, 133 Ind. 69, 18 L. R. A. 562.

The commitment was sufficient to authorize the holding of appellant, and was susceptible of amendment on the facts shown to correspond with the proof as to crime for which appellant was convicted.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.W. 544, 85 Ark. 581, 1908 Ark. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-campbell-ark-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack