Page:Cole v. State (210 Ark. 433).pdf/13

 might have been violated in that manner, but requires the finding that appellants "by the use of force and violence prevented Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation."

The undisputed evidence shows that appellants and their co-conspirators did actually prevent Williams from engaging in a lawful occupation. Williams was assaulted and all but killed and as a result of this beating he was confined in a hospital for a period of seventeen days, during all of which time he was Prevented from working. He was unable to resume his work because of the injuries and wounds inflicted upon him: The evidence as to the threats was required to show why this was done, and was therefore admissible in evidence. This is true because the mere beating of Williams while a violation of the law, would not have been violation of the Act. It was essential to show why he was beaten, and proof of the threats was necessary to show that purpose.

There is no error in this record. Not only is the verdict supported by evidence legally sufficient to sustain the conviction, but it is supported by the undisputed evidence when the conduct of Campbell and his co-conspirators is interpreted in the light of the threats made before, and at the time of the assault upon Williams.

I think the judgment should be affirmed and therefore dissent from the reversal of the judgments pronounced upon the verdict.

I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice McHaney concurs in the views here expressed.