Rider v. State

Decided January 1, 1917

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1917-01-01

The information charges no crime. There is no such offense as “failing to dip cattle.” Acts' 1907, § 5; and Rule 7 of Board Control. Criminal Statutes are strictly construed and no case is to be brought by construction within a statute, unless it is completely within its words. 38 Ark. 519; 53 N. Y. 511; 5 Denio, 76; 3 Humph. 483; 49 Ark. 488. 2. The district is void for want of definite description. 122 Ark. 491.

Relies on Davis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1917-01-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1931

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCulloch, C. J.

¶1This is a prosecution for alleged violation of a rule promulgated by the Board of Control of the Agricultural Station concerning cattle tick eradication, and the case is ruled by the recent (opinion of this court in Davis v. State, 126 Ark. 260, except as to the sufficiency of the information filed by the prosecuting attorney instituting the prosecution.

¶2It is contended that the information is not sufficient because it merely charges 'the defendant with having refused to “dip certain cattle,” without alleging specifically that he refused to comply with the regulation by bringing his cattle, when ordered by the inspector, to “a regular disinfecting station for the .purpose of having them properly dipped.” We think that the language set forth in the information is sufficient to put the defendant upon notice as to the specific offense with which he is charged.

¶3Affirmed.