South v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 101 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The indictment is insufficient. (Young's case, 14 Bush, 161.) -2. The indictment charged but one selling. The c-ourt permitted proof of two. 3. The liquor sold was not the property of appellant. 1. It is not necessary that the indictment should allege that appellant had no license.
Read the full summary
Case 101 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The indictment is insufficient. (Young's case, 14 Bush, 161.) -2. The indictment charged but one selling. The c-ourt permitted proof of two. 3. The liquor sold was not the property of appellant. 1. It is not necessary that the indictment should allege that appellant had no license. Under the “local option” law no license could be obtained. '2. The indictment -charges an offense on a given day, “and at divers other times,” &c. :3. Upon one conviction, appellant may be fined for each selling.
1Opinion of the Court
■CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS
delivered the opinion of the court.
Under the indictment as found and presented, the defendant can be legally convicted of only one offense. The statement that he sold liquors “upon divers other days and times ” describes no offense for which he may be tried. It follows, therefore, that instruction number one is erroneous :so far as it authorizes the jury to find the accused guilty •of more than one offense.
A person may in the same indictment be charged with more than one violation of the local option law, as it is •called; but each offense should be separately charged, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cooke v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Allison v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Mabry v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
- Martin v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Ayers v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912