Commonwealth v. Clifford
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 2 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Indictment good. '(Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, vol. 2, secs. 314, 321, 331-343.) 2. Adams Express Company is a common carrier. (Chapter 29, art. 12, sec. 2, General Statutes; Barclay v. Breckinridge, 4 Metcalfe, 374; Johnson v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush, 430; Warmoth v. Commonwealth, 81 Ky., 136.) 1. Indictment sufficient.
Read the full summary
Case 2 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Indictment good. '(Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, vol. 2, secs. 314, 321, 331-343.) 2. Adams Express Company is a common carrier. (Chapter 29, art. 12, sec. 2, General Statutes; Barclay v. Breckinridge, 4 Metcalfe, 374; Johnson v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush, 430; Warmoth v. Commonwealth, 81 Ky., 136.) 1. Indictment sufficient. (1203 Kentucky Statutes.) 2. The local agent of an express company is guilty of embezzlement if he converts to his own use money intrusted to the company for transportation. (Johnson v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush, 430.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE' LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT.
The question on this appeal by the Commonwealth is, whether the lower court properly sustained a demurrer to the following indictment: “The grand jury * accuse Prank L. Clifford of the crime of embezzlement, committed as follows: The said Prank L. Clifford, '* on — day of May, 1892, and before finding; of this indictment, being a servant in the employment of the Adams Express Company, at Stanford, a co partnership authorized to do business and doing business as a common carrier of packages of money, goods and other things of value, did…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morgan v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932