Carrington v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 18—INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT. x. The physician Is the judge as to whether a party should have whisky as a medicine or not. 2. The custody of appellant by the jailer is equivalent to his being in jail. The act of 1876 was intended to meet cases of this description. 1. The act of 1876 was only intended' to apply to cases where the party was actually in jail. 3. The appellant was not in jail.
Read the full summary
Case 18—INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT. x. The physician Is the judge as to whether a party should have whisky as a medicine or not. 2. The custody of appellant by the jailer is equivalent to his being in jail. The act of 1876 was intended to meet cases of this description. 1. The act of 1876 was only intended' to apply to cases where the party was actually in jail. 3. The appellant was not in jail. The fact that the jailer claimed to be in custody of him amounts to nothing.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE COFER
delivered the opinion of the court.
‘ ‘ Whenever any person shall be lodged in jail, in default of bail, charged with a misdemeanor, or whether committed to jail under an indictment or by the order of an examining-court, it shall be the duty of the jailer to notify the judge-of the quarterly court and the county attorney of the fact, if the court in which the prisoner is indicted or is ordered to-appear is not in session.” (Sec. i, act 18th March, 1876, Bullitt & Feland’s Statutes, 897.) The subsequent sections, provide for a trial before the county judge in such cases as are…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Cooper v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Sherrod v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1916
- Teague v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Spencer v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Noah v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.