Commonwealth v. Hillenbrand
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 67 —INDICTMENTS— APPEALS PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION. Tf it be conceded that the law did not authorize an investigation of the conduct of any member of the board of aldermen selected by the board of councilmen, it yet remains that the appellants were required to be sworn and were sworn by a person authorized by law to administer an oath.
Read the full summary
Case 67 —INDICTMENTS— APPEALS PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION. Tf it be conceded that the law did not authorize an investigation of the conduct of any member of the board of aldermen selected by the board of councilmen, it yet remains that the appellants were required to be sworn and were sworn by a person authorized by law to administer an oath. This answers the requirements of the statute. 1. The indictment charges that the “ General Council ” of the city of Louisville appointed the committee and caused the investigation, &c.; but there is no provision in the city charter…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELBIGG
delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases involve the same legal questions and will be determined together.
The indictments are for false swearing, and are alike in form save as to the matter alleged to have been sworn to by each appellee. Demurrers thereto were sustained by the lower court and the Commonwealth has appealed.
The charge in each indictment is that the defendant therein “did willfully, falsely and feloniously swear, state and depose before a committee of the board of aldermen of the city of Louisville, said committee having been appointed by the president of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- West v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Emery v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- State v. SchoonoverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1962
- Gibbs v. Board of AldermenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
- Markey v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1904