modification instruction in Arkansas

2022Id. at 87 , 4 S.W.3d at 512 .

2022Id. at 87 , 4 S.W.3d at 512 .

1932In Johnson County v. Bost, 139 Ark. 35 , 213 S. W. 388 , in a case where the county court had allowed as credits certain items which were claimed to have been fraudulent and illegal, it was insisted that the chancery court was without jurisdiction and its judgment was sought to be avoided because no sufficient showing of fraud had been made, but this court said: “There is however a modification of that rule with respect to the judgments of county courts in the allowance of claims against the county, and in the recent case of Monroe County v. Brown, 118 Ark. 524 , 177 S. W. 40 , we stated the l

1932In Johnson County v. Bost, 139 Ark. 35 , 213 S. W. 388 , in a case where the county court had allowed as credits certain items which were claimed to have been fraudulent and illegal, it was insisted that the chancery court was without jurisdiction and its judgment was sought to be avoided because no sufficient showing of fraud had been made, but this court said: “There is however a modification of that rule with respect to the judgments of county courts in the allowance of claims against the county, and in the recent case of Monroe County v. Brown, 118 Ark. 524 , 177 S. W. 40 , we stated the l

1941Appellant assigns as error the modification of instruction No. 5 asked by him so as to add the clause ‘ ‘ acting without fault or negligence on his part.” We think this instruction was properly modified and as modified conforms to the law declared in the case of Deatherage v. State, 194 Ark. 513 , 108 S. W. 904 .

1941Appellant assigns as error the modification of instruction No. 5 asked by him so as to add the clause ‘ ‘ acting without fault or negligence on his part.” We think this instruction was properly modified and as modified conforms to the law declared in the case of Deatherage v. State, 194 Ark. 513 , 108 S. W. 904 .

1938Drake v. Pope, 78 Ark. 327 , 95 S. W. 774 ; H.

1938Drake v. Pope, 78 Ark. 327 , 95 S. W. 774 ; H.

1932In Johnson County v. Bost, 139 Ark. 35 , 213 S. W. 388 , in a case where the county court had allowed as credits certain items which were claimed to have been fraudulent and illegal, it was insisted that the chancery court was without jurisdiction and its judgment was sought to be avoided because no sufficient showing of fraud had been made, but this court said: “There is however a modification of that rule with respect to the judgments of county courts in the allowance of claims against the county, and in the recent case of Monroe County v. Brown, 118 Ark. 524 , 177 S. W. 40 , we stated the l

1932In Johnson County v. Bost, 139 Ark. 35 , 213 S. W. 388 , in a case where the county court had allowed as credits certain items which were claimed to have been fraudulent and illegal, it was insisted that the chancery court was without jurisdiction and its judgment was sought to be avoided because no sufficient showing of fraud had been made, but this court said: “There is however a modification of that rule with respect to the judgments of county courts in the allowance of claims against the county, and in the recent case of Monroe County v. Brown, 118 Ark. 524 , 177 S. W. 40 , we stated the l

1918The court told the jury in the general instruction that, “If you entertain a reasonable doubt of his (appellant’s) guilt growing out of the evidence in the case, you will give him the benefit of the doubt and acquit him.” And also instructed the jury in the latter part of the general instruction as follows: “If you entertain a reasonable doubt as to his (appellant’s) intent, you will give him the benefit of that doubt and acquit him. ’ ’ The case of Tanks v. State, 71 Ark. 459 , cited by appellant to support his contention that the modification of instruction No. 2 had the effect of rendering