Perrymore v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Perrymore v. State

83 S.W. 909, 73 Ark. 278, 1904 Ark. LEXIS 23

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 S.W. 909 (Perrymore 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

Perrymore v. State, 83 S.W. 909, 73 Ark. 278, 1904 Ark. LEXIS 23 (Ark. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Riddick, J.

(after stating the facts.) We have carefully examined the transcript in this case and find no prejudicial error. The defendant became involved in a quarrel with his cousin, Houston Taylor, and during the difficulty he struck Taylor on the head with a board. The stroke knocked Taylor down, and he never recovered consciousness, and died a few days after-wards. While the killing was the result of a sudden quarrel, still the facts in proof justified the jury in finding that it was not done in self-defense. The result of the stroke probably went further than defendant intended, as the evidence does not show that he intended to kill his cousin. But the stroke was intentional, and, as it was unlawful, defendant must be held responsible for the consequences. On the whole case, we are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

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

Riddick, J.

(after stating the facts.) We have carefully examined the transcript in this case and find no prejudicial error. The defendant became involved in a quarrel with his cousin, Houston Taylor, and during the difficulty he struck Taylor on the head with a board. The stroke knocked Taylor down, and he never recovered consciousness, and died a few days after-wards. While the killing was the result of a sudden quarrel, still the facts in proof justified the jury in finding that it was not done in self-defense. The result of the stroke probably went further than defendant intended, as the evidence does not show that he intended to kill his cousin. But the stroke was intentional, and, as it was unlawful, defendant must be held responsible for the consequences. On the whole case, we are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.W. 909, 73 Ark. 278, 1904 Ark. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrymore-v-state-ark-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack