1100 STATE V. BOATRIGHT. [192 STATE V. BOATRIGHT. Crim. 4009 Opinion delivered September 28, 1936. 1. CRIMINAL LAW—JUDGMENT NOT REVERSED, WHEN.—Where accused is acquitted of a charge punishable by imprisonment, the Supreme Court cannot reverse the case. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR.—Where the record shows only the verdict of the jury and that an appeal was prayed and granted, but there is no record of a judgment, there is nothing for the Supreme Court to affirm, reverse or modify, and, therefore, nothing from which the state could appeal; where the record fails to show the entry of a final judgment, the appeal will be &missed.
ARK. STATE V. BOATRIGHT. 1101 3. CRIMINAL : LAW — VARIANCE—Where indictment charged that defendant defrauded bank of gold, silver and paper money, and the proof showed that he received draft which he cashed, there was no variance between allegation and proof calling for a reversal. Appeal from Madison Circuit Court ; E. M. Fowler, ' Special Judge ; dismissed. Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and J. F. Koone, Assistant, for appellant. G. T. Sullins, W. N. Ivie and Charles Ivie, for appellee. McHANE-y , J. Appellee was indicted charged with defrauding the Valley Bank of Hindsville of a large suin of money, a felony. He was tried upon said charge and at the conclusion of the .state's testimony, the court, on motion of appellee that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof in that indictment alleged he defrauded the bank of "gold, silver and paper .money," whereas the proof showed he reeeived from the bank its draft on its correspondent bank in St. Louis, which .he cashed the same day, instructed the jury to return a verdict for appellee, which was done. • • The . state has appealed under the provisions of §§ 3410 and 3411, Crawford & Moses' Digest. Since appellee was acquitted of the charge, it being a charge punishable by imprisonment, we cannot reverse the case. Section 3412, Crawford .& Moses' Digest ; art. 2, § 8, Const., 1874; State v. Smith; 94 Ark, 368, 126 S. W. 1057; State v. Gray, 160 Ark..•580, 255 S. W. 304. We have examined the record and it fails to shoNii that any final judgment was ever •eritered on the verdict disCharging -appellee. The record shows the verdict of the jury and that an appeal was prayed and granted, but there is no record of a judgment.. There is therefore nothing from which the state might appeal, and nothing . for this court to affirm, reverse or modify. It has been Many Hines held that ... an appeal will be dismissed for want of a final judgment. See cases cited in Craw-ford's Digest underAppeal and . Error, § 22; vol. 1, p. 130. • What We have said must not be construed, in any manner, to approve the action of the trial court in in.-
1102 [192 structing a Verdict for appellee. On the contrary, we are of the opinion —the' , court fell into . error.. There is no variance: 'Appellee xeceiVed a draft on which he got the oneY. See Keitt v. Stfite,.i48 . Ark. 439, 220 . .S. W..81.4; Hall State; 161-Axk; 453, 257 , S:'W. 61 ;- Cook , v. State, 130 Ark. 90, 196 S. W. 922; Speitrs State,'173 krk. -1071, '294 S. W.:66. , Let, the appeal be dismissed" fOr *Want of a final jdgmeiit hi the recoi.'d. •
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.