Jones v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 26 — INDICTMENT APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CRIMINAL COURT. The indictment ought to have been adjudged insufficient both on the demurrer and on the motion in arrest of judgment. 1. Because it gives no description of the notes alleged to have been stolen. 2. Because it did not allege that the notes were genuine. 3. Because no value of the notes was alleged, and none was proven. (Lowe v. The People, 2 Parker’s Criminal Reports, 37; Rhodus v. Commonwealth, 2 Duvall, 159.)
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Lindsay
eeliveree the opinion op the court.
The indictment charges that Jones committed the crime of grand larceny by feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away “one twenty-dollar note and one ten-dollar note, both of said notes being of the United States currency commonly called greenbacks. Said notes are not and were not before the grand jury, and could not by said jury be had before it, because the whereabouts of said notes was not and could not be known to said jury; therefore said notes can not be more particularly described, either as to their date, number, or as to whether they belonged to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bailey v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Hopper v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
- Stephens v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Jones v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880