Gratz v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 28 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The indictment, which charged the defendant with “ the crime of malicious cutting and wounding with intent to kill,” was defective in omitting the word, another,” or the name of the person wounded.
Read the full summary
Case 28 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The indictment, which charged the defendant with “ the crime of malicious cutting and wounding with intent to kill,” was defective in omitting the word, another,” or the name of the person wounded. (Kentucky Statutes, sec 1166.) 2. The indictment having charged the offense as committed on the day the indictment was found, and the proof being that the offense was committed on a day prior to the finding .of the indictment, the indictment was defective in failing to charge that the offense was committed before the finding thereof. (Jones…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT.
Tlie indictment under which appellant was convicted is as follows: “The grand jury of Clark county, in the name and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, accuse David Gratz of the crime of malicious cutting and wounding with intent to kill, committed as follows, viz: That said David Gratz on the twenty-fifth day of September, 1884, in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully, willfully, feloniously and maliciously cut and wound T. M. Newton with • a knife with intent to kill him, the said Newton, of which cutting and wounding he did not…
2Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. TuckerDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1903
- Garrison v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Commonwealth v. Phoenix Amusement Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Gregory v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Barnett v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.