. 2. ‘
, plead 'Not Wuilty' and 'Once in jeopardy'
The Court proceeded with the hearing over defendant's object- ‘
t ion; and endeavored to prove that Laynesville was a district in ’
which local option existed. The evidence admitted by this Court on .
this issue was error: The petition to the County Court to submit
- the quwstion of local option to the voters was not signed by 25%
of the voters voting in said precinct (Kentucky Statutes § 2554);
and the election was ordered to he and was held less than sixty
days (Kentucky Statutes § 2554) from the time and only fifty eight
days had elapsed; and the election held on said date was unauthor—
ized by law and was and is void. The Court erred, over appellant's :
objection, in permitting said petition, order and certificate of i
the election to be read to the jury as in legal contemplation was ‘
nul tiel record. 3
The Court was in error in allowing and permitting evidence to I
t be received on questions or shipment and delivering to Parsons as
‘ the only ;uestion charged in the indictment was sale and delivery ‘
‘ to Hobinett, and evidence as to sales to Parsons had the effect of
i prejudieing and inflaming the minds of the jury against defendant.
’ The Court misinstructed the jury and refused, on defendant's
g motion, to prOperly instruct the jury. .
i The defendant, The Adams Express Company, is shown by the ev— f
‘ t
i idenoe to be a common carrier, engaged in Inter—State Commerce be- r
L tween the several states and particularly between Ohio and Kentucky. {
E That Sundry packages, contents to it unknown, were shipped by the
. Brookville Distillery Company and White Oak Distillery Company, in
5 and From Cincinnati, in the State of,0hio, and consigned to E. S.
Robinett, a citizen of Kentucky, at Harold, P.0., and station, in L
Ploy: County, in said last named State. The freight charges on these ‘