Court Opinion

ID: 6545494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:19:13.723505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:57.323942
License: Public Domain

Riddick, J. (after stating the facts.) This is an appeal from a judgment acquitting the defendant of the charge of selling liquors without license. The defendant proved that he sold under a license issued by the county court, and the- State undertook to show that at the previous general election the majority of the votes cast in that county were against license, and that the county court had no authority to issue the license. Now, under the law, the returns of the elections from the different voting precincts are required to be forwarded to the election commissioners of the county, and they are required to lay such returns before the county court at the next term thereafter. - Kirby’s Dig. § 5119. From these returns the county court must, before granting a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors, determine whether a majority of the votes of the county have been cast in favor of license or not. Freeman v. Lazarus, 61 Ark. 252, 32 S. W. 680. The license introduced in this case raises the presumption that the county judge, before issuing this license, found that the majority of the votes on the question of license were cast in favor of license, for otherwise the court had no authority to grant the license. Now, while this finding of the county court is not conclusive, still it cannot be overturned by the abstract of the vote filed by the election commissioners, to which no certificate covering the vote on the question of license is attached. The certificate offered in evidence purports to certify the votes cast for the different candidates for office, and the number of votes received by such persons, but makes no reference to the vote on the question of license. The court, therefore, in our opinion, did not err in excluding it. The testimony of the election commissioner offered by the State was also clearly incompetent, for there was no showing that the original returns of the election from the different election, precincts of the county had been destroyed, or that they could not be procured; and, in the absence of such proof, parol evidence of their contents was not admissible. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.