Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Ark. 97

Beneux v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1859-01-15

<p>A defendant indicted by the name of Bennaux, pleaded in abatement, that he was known by the name of Beneux; Held, that the names were idem sonans.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1904

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Compton

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2Appellant was indicted in the Franklin Circuit Court for selling ardent spirits contrary to the statute, etc.

¶3He pleaded in abatement that he was indicted by the name of Justin Bennaux; whereas he was then, and had always been known by the name of Justin Beneux.

¶4The Court sustained a demurrer to the plea. Appellant stood mute, and a plea of not guilty being entered by order of the Court, he was convicted and fined.

¶5Did the Court err in sustaining the demurrer? It is insisted by counsel that Beneux is a French name, and that, according to the rules of orthography and pronunciation in the French language, is widely different in sound from Bennaux. It may be replied, that however this might be to the ears and understanding of a Frenchman, the names would seem to be idem sonans, according to our language.

¶6In Rector vs. Taylor, Gardiner & Co., 7 Eng. 128, this Court held that the names “ Gardiner ” and “ Gardner,” were not variant in sound, the letter “i” in the one name making no necessary difference in sound. In that case, the Court said: “ So, we held ‘ Gravaier ’ and ‘ Gravier,’ to be the same sound. The decisions have already gone as far as may be allowed in support of such technicalities, which do but tend to produce delay in the due administration of the law, and should rather be modified, than extended further.”

¶7In sustaining the demurrer, the Court did not err.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/20/ark/97 · .json · Public domain