Case Name: Breashears v. Norman
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1928-01-30
Citations: 176 Ark. 26
Docket Number: 
Parties: Breashears v. Norman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 26–31

Head Matter:
Breashears v. Norman.
Opinion delivered January 30, 1928.
Robinson & George and Robert Radley, for appellant.
Wilson & Wilson and Hays, Priddy, Rorex & Madole, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). The Legislature of 1925 passed -an act to prohibit the running at large of horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, etc., in certain parts of Yell County. Acts of 1925, p. 170. Section 1 of this act reads as follows:
"It shall be unlawful for the owner, agent, or any person having charge of any horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, jacks, jennets or geese to permit or allow same to run at large in the following described territory of Yell County, Arkansas, to-wit: Wilson Township; Galla Rock Township; Centerville Township; Rose Creek Township; all of Dawson Township; all of Lamar Township; all of Mason Township; Ward Township;. all of Gilkey Township; Lower Lafave Township to foot of Fourche Mountain on south side; Rover Township to foot of Fourche Mountain on south side; and Compton Township to foot of Fourche Mountain on south side; Dardanelle Township; Delaware Township; Magazine Township; Prairie Township; all of Danville Township north of Petit Jean River and Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad; Sulphur Springs Township; Ferguson Township; Riley Township; Richland Township; Wave-land Township."
It is agreed that the cattle belonged to the plaintiff, and that they -were impounded on land belonging to the defendant in Lower Lafave Township, in Yell County. It is conceded that the case turns upon the construction of the words "Lower Lafave Township to foot of Fourche Mountain on south side."
We have copied all of the section defining the territory in the stock-law district in order to show the condition and situation of the lands as indicated by the Legislature when it passed the law. The intention of the Legislature in framing a statute is to be collected from the words used, the context,, the subject-mater, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and reason for the law. Turner v. Edrington, 170 Ark. 1155, 282 S. W. 1000; Gay Oil Co. v. State, 170 Ark. 587, 280 S. W. 632; Harris v. State, 169 Ark. 627, 276 S. W. 361, and Summers v. Road Imp. Dist., 160 Ark. 371, 254 S. W. 696.
It will be observed that the description with reference to Rover and Compton townships is identically the same as. that of Lower Lafave Township. All three of these townships lie on the north side of Fourche Mountain, and the top of Fourche Mountain is the south boundary line of each of the townships. Fourche River runs along- the north side of Fourche Mountain, and in some places there are abrupt rises, and in other places there is a narrow valley, and the first abrupt rise leads up the mountain. Fourche Mountain is from eig*ht to ten miles across from the foot of it on the north side to the foot of it on the south side. The mountains are only fit for grazing lands, and .are not susceptible to cultivation. Indeed, a large part of the mountain in Lower Lafave and the adjoining townships in Yell County is in the forest reserve of the United States Government, and permits, under certain 'conditions, are given to cattle, owners to graze their cattle there. The plaintiff had one of these permits.
Bearing in mind the situation and condition a.s it existed at the time the act was passed, we think it was the evident intention of the Legislature to exclude all of Fourche Mountain from the boundaries of the stock district. There is no conceivable reason why Fourche Mountain in Lower Fafave, Rover and Compton townships should have been included in the district and the rest of the mountain left out.
We have already seen the particular description applicable to this case, i.e., "Lower Lafave Township to the foot of Fourche Mountain on south side." The word "to" is a word of-exclusion, and the Legislature evidently meant to exclude Fourche Mountain from the limits of the stock district. We think the words, "Lower Lafave Township to the foot of Fourche Mountain on the South side," meant to the foot of Fourche Mountain on the south side of the township and not on the south side of the mountain. In the first place, the south side of the mountain opposite Lower Lafave Township would be in Crawford Township, as the top of the mountain is the dividing line between Lower Lafave and Crawford townships. While the description is somewhat awkwardly expressed, we think there can be no doubt but that this is the meaning of the Legislature, when the object and purpose of the act and all the surrounding-circumstances and the situation of the land are considered together. This is the view of the matter taken by the circuit court in trying the case.
The court' submitted to the jury the question of whether or not the field from which the cattle were taken was situated on the side of the mountain, at such a place where there was an abrupt rise in the land as distinguished from a gradual slope constituting- the narrow valley between the southern bank of Fourche River and the foot of the north side of Fourclie Mountain. The jury settled this question of faet in favor of the plaintiff, and, under our settled rules of practice, the verdict cannot he disturbed on appeal.
It follows that the judgment of the circuit court was correct, and it will therefore he affirmed.