Hale v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 59 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL FROM LIVINGSTON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The indictment is not good because it does not allege that there was anything of value in the house broken. 2. The house alleged to have been broken is not sufficiently described m the indictment. 3. The court erred in its instructions to the jury in singling out a part of the evidence and giving undue prominence to it. Argued orally. No brief filed.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Appellant was indicted and convicted for the offense of feloniously breaking and entering a storehouse with intent to steal therefrom, committed as follows: “The said Bud Hale, in said county of Livingston, on May — , 1894. * * did feloniously break and enter the storehouse of John B. Led-berry, a depository for goods, wares and merchandise, with intent to steal therefrom property of value.”
It is argued by counsel the indictment is defective because, first, it does not contain a statement that there were, at the time the storehouse was broken, any…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. GoldenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Larson v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1955
- Sorke v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
- Wagner v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935