# Cole v. State (210 Ark. 433)

Subsequent history. On remand, the case was re-tried and Cole, Jones, and Bean were again convicted. The supreme court affirmed the convictions of Cole and Jones and reversed and dismissed Bean's conviction. 211 Ark. 836 (1947), rev'd, 333 U.S. 196 (1948), on remand, 214 Ark. 387 (1949), aff'd, 338 U.S. 345 (1949).
Supreme Court of Arkansas
210 Ark. 433
Cole, Jones and Bean v. State
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division
No. 4414.—Delivered: October 7, 1946.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Smith
* Linked cases: 210 Ark. 433 211 Ark. 836 333 U.S. 196 214 Ark. 387 338 U.S. 345
* CRIMINAL LAW—ACT 193 OF 1943.—Although evidence was inadmissible that threats had been made by persons other than the defendants at a time prior to the occasion when violence was used, the trial Court did not err in refusing to quash an indictment because it contained the single allegation that a man named ​Williams had been prevented from working "by the use of force and violence," this being sufficient to charge a crime.
* STATUTES—CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARTICULAR LAW.—Act 193 of 1943 is not void as contravening the State Constitution. See Smith and Brown v. State, 207 Ark. 106; Gurein [and others] v. State, The Law Reporter for April 15, 1946.
* CRIMINAL LAW—CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.—Act 193 of 1943, § 1, makes it unlawful, "by the use of force or violence, or threat of the use of force or violence," to prevent any person from engaging in a lawful vocation. Held, tbat two separate and distinct offenses are stated.
* CRIMINAL LAW—ADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY.—Where an indictment authorized by Act 193 of 1943 charged only that a worker had, "by the use of force and violence," prevented a designated employe from engaging in a lawful occupation, it was error to allow witnesses to testify that "someone" among a group of strikers, while talking in a tent eight or ten hours earlier, had said that "they" were going to talk "to a boy who was working," and if he didn't talk right "they" would give him a whipping.
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Lawrence C. Auten, Judge; reversed.
Lindsey P. Walden, Elmer Schoggen, and Ross Robley, for appellants.
Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Earl N. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
[Opinion of the court by Chief Justice Griffin Smith. Dissenting opinion by Justice Frank G. Smith, joined by Justice Edgar L. McHaney.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse