Ches. & Ohio R. R. v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 57 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM^OLARK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Upon the proof afforded by the record alone in the first case, the plea of former acquittal was, as matter of laiv, conclusively sustained, and the jury should have been told to so find.
Read the full summary
Case 57 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM^OLARK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Upon the proof afforded by the record alone in the first case, the plea of former acquittal was, as matter of laiv, conclusively sustained, and the jury should have been told to so find. Upon this plea it devolves upon the defendant to' show two things: First, the record of the former acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a good indictment, charging, in terms, the same offense; and, second, the identity of the offenses. (1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, section 816; Wharton’s American Criminal Law, section 568; 8 Greenleaf…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion of tiie court.
Two indictments were found at the same time against the appellant, the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company, for nuisance, by obstructing a turnpike road with its cars. Each charged that the offense was committed ¡at the same time, and they are couched substantially in the same language, save the one now under consideration •avers that the obstruction was “ habitual.” A continuing nuisance was not charged, however, and it is proper only for the purpose of abatement. Punishment only was sought, and the charge therefore of habitual commission was…
2Cited by18 opinions
- State v. McDonaldOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. HoweOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Ehrlick v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- State v. HealySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Scarf v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.