Olive v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 18 — INDICTMENT FOR BURGLARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Criminal Code, sec. 126. Revised Statutes, 1 Stanton, sec. 1, p. 382, sec. 6, p. 383. 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law, pp. 1607,1610,1820,1821. 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law, pp. 401, 402, 260, 259, 597. 2 Bishop on Grim.
Read the full summary
CASE 18 — INDICTMENT FOR BURGLARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Criminal Code, sec. 126. Revised Statutes, 1 Stanton, sec. 1, p. 382, sec. 6, p. 383. 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law, pp. 1607,1610,1820,1821. 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law, pp. 401, 402, 260, 259, 597. 2 Bishop on Grim. Proc., secs. 101, 102, 103, 104, 109. 2 Archbold’s Prac. and Plead., 329, 337, 338, 339. CITED— Criminal Code, sec. 334. 1 Met., 6 ; Tipper vs. Commonwealth. 17 B. Mon., 408 ; Comely vs. Commonwealth.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PETERS
delivered the opixiox of the court:
We feel constrained, after a careful reading and consideration of the able argument presented by the attorneji for the appellant, recommended not more by the learning and research displayed than the laudable zeal manifested for his unhappy client, to dissent from his conclusions.
First. It is contended, on behalf of the appellant, that two distinct offenses are charged in the same count in the indictment, there being but one count, and that the judgment, for that reason, should have been arrested.
If the indictment had charged, after the formal…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. McGarveyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Thomas v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Drury v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Farris v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- Taylor v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.