Conley v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 23 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL FROM CARLISLE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The staute under which the indictment was found is in violation of section 51 of the constitution, because the subject is not expressed in the title.
Read the full summary
Case 23 — INDICTMENT— APPEAL FROM CARLISLE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The staute under which the indictment was found is in violation of section 51 of the constitution, because the subject is not expressed in the title. (O’Donaghue v. Aiken, 2 Duv., 479; Milf-lange v. McCullom, 83 Ky., 365.) 2. The statute also violates section 59 of the constitution, which forbids special acts “to regulate the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors.” 3. The chapter upon crimes and punishments which went into effect April 10, 1893, had the effect to repeal the statute under which the indictment -was found, which forms…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE EASTIN
delivered tiie opinion of the court.
Tlie appellant, Will Conley, was indicted by the grand jury of Carlisle county for willfully and maliciously disturbing, displacing and removing a rail and switch, the same *127being a fixture attached to the track of the Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans railroad, which was at that time leased and operated by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and whereby an engine and cars might have been upset and thrown from the track.
On the trial of the case in the circuit court the Commonwealth introduced two witnesses who testified that, between the hours…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buchannon v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1894
3Cited by18 opinions
- Eastern Ky. Coal Lands Corp. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Lakes v. GoodloeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Thompson v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Williams v. WeddingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Hyser v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.