Arnold v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 53 — CONTEMPT APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The rule against appellant was in violation of article 4, section 5, of the constitution, which requires that, the process shall be in the name of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 2. There should have been an indictment.
Read the full summary
Case 53 — CONTEMPT APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The rule against appellant was in violation of article 4, section 5, of the constitution, which requires that, the process shall be in the name of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 2. There should have been an indictment. (Section 13, article 13, Constitution.) 3. It was error for the replevin bond to bear interest. 1. The statute does not require an indictment in this class of cases. 1 '2. Section 8, article 17, chapter 29, does require an indictment before proceeding against persons violating it, but in this case it is not provided for,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
belivereb the opinion of the court.
In August, 1880,. during the progress of a trial in the Jessamine circuit court, under an indictment against James H. Arnold for murder, the appellant, Isaac H. Arnold, with force and arms, and in open court, obstructed the proceedings in the case, and was committed to the jail of Jessamine county to await the action of the grand jury. On the next day a rule was issued against the appellant, requiring him to show cause why he should not be fined and imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of a jury, for the contempt of hindering and obstructing the…
2Cited by28 opinions
- State ex inf. Crow v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Carter v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
- State v. Frew & HartWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Wyatt v. the PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Commonwealth v. O'HARRAHCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1953
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.