Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1916-05-09
YEAR IN PRISON 0NLY PENALTY FOR
 SELLING Bi)OzE
Supreme Court Passes on Meaning of New State
 Wide Proi1ibition Law.

Little Rock, May 8.-There is but one penalty--one years !mprisonment -for a person convicted oI violating selling or giving away liquor, accord ing to a ruling handed down today by the supreme court.
 The tribunal Judge Smith dissent ing, held that under the law as it now stands, the sale OF giving away of liquor was a felony, and could not be a miSdemeanOr.
 The act was cumulative to old laws only in the matter of issuance of li- censes in the state and not cumulative to preserve old law penalties which would give the state right to treat bootlegging either as a misdemeanor or as a felony.
 The test ease came from the circuit court of Cross county, in which a man named Seawood, charged with bootleg ging, was discharged when the court sustained a demurrer in his behalf
 The record did not state why the demurrer was sustained, but Ii was as sumed by the supreme court from ar guments of the attorney general the opinion said, that the decree was based upon the view of the statewide prohi- bition statute making the sale or giv- ing away felony. The contention was that the act was cumulative, and all penalties under the old law were preserved and the state could treat cases as misdemeanors or as felonies.
 The court held that the act was cumulative only in respect to issuance of license, as section 4 of the law says: "All parts of laws providing for issuance of liquor licenses in the state of Arkansas that are in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, and this act is intended to be cumulative to all present liquor laws prohibiting the issuance of liquor licenses in the state of Arkansas"
 The ruling was that, if person was indicted for selling or giving away li- quor and were found guilty, he must serve one years sentence in the state penitentiary. with no other penalty provided. He could not be tried on a misdemeanor charge based on old statutes, because they are expressly repealed by the new law.
 The question of whether it was necessary for the indictment to charge that the offense was "felonously" committed was settled in the opinion by the court that it is usual in the state for an indictment to use only the words of the statutes. and the statutes do not use the word "felonious' in the prohibition bill, hence an omission of that word in the indictment does not warrant sustaining of demurrer based on that omission.
 The supreme court held, in conclu- sion, that the indictment of Seawood was for public offense within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and that it was an error to sustain the de- murrer. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with direc- tions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.
 Decisions Rendered.
 The following opinions were deliv cred in the supreme court Monday:
 By Chief Justice McCulloch:
 James Mcconnell vs. City of Boone vile, from Logan circuit court; af- firmed.
 State vs. Berl Seawood, from Cross circuit court; reversed and remanded. Justice Smith dissents.
 Rural School District No. F vs. Special School District No 56, from Polk circuit court; affirmed.
 By Justice Wood:
 J. l.. Lefker vs. Rachel Harner. from Washington chancery court; affirmed.
 Slim and Shorty vs. State. from Lit tie River circuit court: judgments affirmed for resisting officer. but re- versed and dismissed charge as to as- sault against Shorty.
 By Justice Hart:
 L. J. Brunson vs. Will Teague, from Crawford circuit Court; reversed and 
 w. R. King vs. Clcmentine Boles, from Washington chancery court; re- versed and remanded with directions.
 Maggie Watson vs. Mary Hill, from Clay chancery court; affirmed.
 By Justice Kirby:
 St. Louis, Iron Mountain and South ern Railway Co. vs. o. c. Stevens, from White circuit court; affirmed.
 Buckeye Cotton Oil Go. vs. Ed liar ris, from Pulaski circuit court; re- versed and remanded.
 J. R. Crigler vs. John W. SlOss, from Crawford circuit court; affirmed vs. Cazort & McGehee Co.,. from Craw- lOIO CliCulI CUuIC, du llIiIcu.
 Mary E. Evans vs. Eugene Williams, from St. Francis chancery court; re- versed and remanded in part.
 By Justice Smith:
 J. T. Brooks vs. F. H. Goodwin, from Randolph circuit court; reversed and remanded.
 Libbie Mullins vs. U. D. Wilcox, from Benton chancery court; affirmed.
 M. 1. VanDeventer vs. Jesse z. Smith, from Benton chancery court; affirmed.
 Orders Per Curiam.
 City of Little Rock vs. Emma Hold en, from Pulaski circuit court; re- hearing granted and judgment affirm ed; substituted opinion by Justice Smith.
 Lloyd G. Merritt vs. Fred c. Kubler, from Garland chancery court; appeal reinstated on motion of appellant.
 St. Louis, Iron Mountain and South ern Railway Co. vs. Charlie Stewart, from Lincoln circuit court; set for or- al argument May p. United States Cooperage and Handle Go. vs. B. R. Williams, from Jackson circuit court; set for oral argument May 22. Edward Haglin vs. Ava Haglin from Sebastian chancery court; set