Cole v. State (214 Ark. 387)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For works with similar titles, see Cole v. State.
Cole v. State, 214 Ark. 387 (1949)
the Arkansas Supreme Court

For decision in prior appeal, see Cole v. State, 210 Ark. 433 (1947).

This opinion was delivered on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948), rev'g 211 Ark. 836 (1947).

Subsequent history. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision. See Cole v. Arkansas, 338 U.S. 345 (1949).

2860212Cole v. State, 214 Ark. 387 (1949)1949the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

214 Ark. 387

Cole and Jones  v.  State

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division

No. 4448.—Delivered: January 10, 1949. 

  1. CRIMINAL LAW—UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES.—The unlawful assemblies prohibited by § 2-A of Act 193 of 143 is an assemblage where persons acting in concert have assembled in an attempt to prevent by force or violence some other person from engaging in a lawful occupation.
  2. CRIMINAL LAW.—Since the state can constitutionally prohibit the unlawful assemblage denounced in § 2-A, it may also prohibit a person from promoting, encouraging or aiding such unlawful assemblage as is done by § 2-B of Act 193 of 1943.
  3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.—Act 193 of 1943 prohibiting unlawful assemblages and prohibiting others from aiding or encouraging such assemblages is not open to constitutional objections.
  4. STATUTES—CONSTRUCTION.—Act 193 of 1943 prohibits unlawful assemblages, and appellants' contention that it prohibits free assemblies cannot be sustained.
  5. CRIMINAL LAW—LABOR UNIONS.—Since appellants aided and encouraged the strikers who were unlawfully assembled in assault.ing W, one of the workers, they violated Act 193 of 1943 by attempting to prevent, by the use of force and violence, persons from engaging in a lawful vocation.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Gus Fulk, Judge; affirmed.

Ross Robley and Elmer Schoggen, for appellant.

Guy E. Williams, Attorney General and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

[Opinion of the court by Justice ED F. McFADDIN. Justice R. W. ROBINS, dissenting without opinion. Justice GEORGE ROSE SMITH, not participating.]

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse