ExploreUK is getting a new design. Try the beta site!


ExploreUK home

0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

Adams Express Company v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1906

Part of Harkins Family papers

V g? r i -.' 5 t , i 2 1 E J i COURT OF APPEALS. l Adame Express company, Appellant. Against // Brief for Appellant. , The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Aypellee, } At the term, 1906, of the Floyd Cincuit Court an indict ment was returwed against the Appellant, charging the commission of the offense of unlawfully selling spiritous liquors to h. 8. Rob inett, without a license, in a local Option district, viz. in Civil District No. , Floyd County, Kentucky. , A Demurrer to the indictment was filed, which raieed the ques- tion of the sufficientcy of the indictment with respect to all in- sufficient avernents. Among the important considerations are:- Can the defendant under the averment of the indictment be shown to have copttted any offense? In other words, can an individual, or a corporation, be indicted for another's doing of an unlawful act? Certainly not, unless the amendment to Sec. 2557 of Kentucky Statute, by Act of the Kent cky hegialature, approved the II day of march, 1902, will authorize tbie to be done; hut, it nypears to me, that even in that state of case the defendant would have to be indicted with the shipper, or the agent making the delivery; and it was and is an error to indict the Adans Express Co pany alone. This demurrer having been ruled adversly to the defendant, , thereupon the defendant plead 'Not Guilty', and a jury was enman- nelled and accepted, but not sworn, the Attorney for the Commonwealth read the indictment and announced defendant's plea, when it waeimmem- bered by the Clerk that the jury had not been sworn; thereupon the Attorney for the Commonwealth entered notion that the jury be then sworn, and again called upon the defendant to plead, and it then