Sutton v. State
53 S.W. 890, 67 Ark. 155, 1899 Ark. LEXIS 19
Opinion
There is no proof that the mule and trappings alleged to have been stolen were in fact stolen. The boy-in lawful possession of the property when the same is alleged to have been stolen was, for some reason unknown to us, not called as a witness in the case, and there is no other testimony as to how possession passed from him. This testimony is a necessary link in the chain, and should have been produced, if possible, and, if not possible, the proper explanation should have been given, and the next best evidence adduced.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sutton v. State, 53 S.W. 890, 67 Ark. 155, 1899 Ark. LEXIS 19 (Ark. 1899).
53 S.W. 890 (Sutton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
King v. State
465 S.W.2d 712 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1971)
Butler v. State
129 S.W.2d 226 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1939)
Whitney v. State
4 S.W.2d 9 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Little v. State
178 S.W. 374 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1915)
Douglass v. State
121 S.W. 923 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)