Commonwealth v. Hardy
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 46. — PROSECUTION AGAINST TOM HARDY FOR BRINGING LIQUOR INTO A LOCAL OPTION DISTRICT.— Appeal from Cumberland Circuit Court. H. C. Baker, Circuit Judge. Prom a judgment sustaining a demurrer to tbe indictment tbe Commonwealth appeals.
Read the full summary
CASE 46. — PROSECUTION AGAINST TOM HARDY FOR BRINGING LIQUOR INTO A LOCAL OPTION DISTRICT.— Appeal from Cumberland Circuit Court. H. C. Baker, Circuit Judge. Prom a judgment sustaining a demurrer to tbe indictment tbe Commonwealth appeals. Our contention is that the mere bringing into .and delivering of spirituous liquors into a local option district, is a violation of chapter 63 of the Act of the Legislature of Kentucky of 1906, to regulate the carrying, etc., of intoxicating liquors into such districts, whether the person carrying and delivering the liquor, does it for hire or not.
1Opinion of the Court
*376Opinion op the. Court by
Judge Barker
Affirming.
The appellee, Tom Hardy, was indicted by the grand jury of Cumberland county, charged with the offense of “bringing into, and delivering, spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors, to another person,” in a district where the sale of intoxicating liquors had been prohibited. The indictment was drawn under an act of the General Assembly of the comjmonw'ealth of Kentucky entitled “An Act to regulate the carrying, moving, delivering, transferring- or distributing of intoxicating liquors in local option districts. ” Acts of 1906, p‘. 320, c. 63. Section 4…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mayor of Knoxville v. CainTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
- City of Dayton v. LoryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- City of Louisville v. ZoellerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- City of Henderson v. DennisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Crain v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1953