Commonwealth v. Taylor
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 64 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT. As to sufficiency of indictment, see Commonwealth v. Smock, 8 Ky. Law Rep., 143; Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 8 Ky. Law Rep., 257; Commonwealth v. Maynard, 91 Ky., 131; Biggerstaff v. Commonwealth, 11 Bush, 169.
1Opinion of the Court
JTJDGE PATNTER
delivered .the opinion op the court.
This appeal is prosecuted by the Commonwealth from a judgment of the Simpson Circuit Court dismissing the indictment on demurrer. The question is as to the sufficiency of its averments to constitute an offense under the statute, which is as follows: ‘‘If any person, in any matter which is or may be judicially pending, or which is being investigated by a grand jury, or on any subject in which he can legally be sworn, or on which he is required to be sworn, when sworn by a person authorized by law to adminter an oath, shall willfully and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Conner v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1878
- Commonwealth v. TannerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1869
- Taylor v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1868
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. GilletteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Adams Express Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Commonwealth v. RansdallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Commonwealth v. DrewryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- State v. PapalosSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1954
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.