Lucker v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 40 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CITY COURT. CITED— Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “ Tippling-house.” 4 Blackstone, 64. 1 Duvall, 161; Taylor vs. Commonwealth. 2 Duvall, 90; Pike vs. Commonwealth. City Charter of Louisville, sec. 14, art. 5. 18 B. Mon., 35; Ritte vs. Commonwealth. 2 B. Mon., 281; Duncan vs. Commonwealth. 15 B. Mon.; Commonwealth vs. Allen. 14 B. Mon., 385; Commonwealth vs. Kamp. 2 B. Mon., 296; Commonwealth vs. Luck.
Read the full summary
CASE 40 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CITY COURT. CITED— Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “ Tippling-house.” 4 Blackstone, 64. 1 Duvall, 161; Taylor vs. Commonwealth. 2 Duvall, 90; Pike vs. Commonwealth. City Charter of Louisville, sec. 14, art. 5. 18 B. Mon., 35; Ritte vs. Commonwealth. 2 B. Mon., 281; Duncan vs. Commonwealth. 15 B. Mon.; Commonwealth vs. Allen. 14 B. Mon., 385; Commonwealth vs. Kamp. 2 B. Mon., 296; Commonwealth vs. Luck. Revised Statutes, sec. 3, art. 4, chap. 99. Criminal Code, sec. 121. CITED— 4 B. Mon., 4; Commonwealth vs. Turner.' Criminal Code, secs. 335, 349, sub-sec.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion oe the court:
On the trial of an indictment against the appellant for keeping a “tippling-house” in the city of Louisville, the jury returned a verdict for sixty dollars, for which the court, overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered a judgment against him, to reverse which he prosecutes this appeal.
The only testimony before the jury was, that spirituous liquors had been drank in the appellant’s house “ more than twice,” and that he had a State license to retail such liquors, and had also paid for, but had not obtained, a city license.
On these facts the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- John L. Humbard Construction Co. v. City of MiddlesboroCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931