Case ID: ky_211/html/0481-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chief Justice Clarke", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hall v. Commonwealth.
    (Decided November 27, 1925.)
    Appeal from Harlan Circuit Court.
    1. Indictment and Information — Indictment Held Sufficiently to Allege County in which Offense Committed. — Indictment alleging that offense was committed “in said county” held sufficiently to allege county in which offense was committed, as required by Criminal Code of Practice, section 124, where indictment was headed “HarIan Circuit Court,” and began, “Tbe grand jury of Harlan county,” and no other county was mentioned therein.
    2'. Criminal Law — Verdict Convicting Defendant of Unlawfully Selling Liquor Held Not Flagrantly Against Evidence. — Verdict convicting defendant of unlawfully selling liquor held not flagrantly ■against the evidence, where charge was supported by one witness for Commonwealth and denied only by defendant, whose reputation for truth and veracity, as shown by his own witness, was bad.
    HALL, LEE & SNYDER for appellant.
    FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and GARDNER K. BYERS, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Clarke

Affirming.

Appellant was convicted o£ unlawfully selling liquor in Harlan county, and for reversal of that judgment contends the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment, and that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

The only criticism of the indictment is that it does not clearly and certainly allege the county in which the offense was committed, as required by section 124 of the Criminal Code. The basis of this contention is that the offense is alleged to have been committed “in said county.” But this clearly and certainly means Harlan county, as the indictment is headed “Harlan Circuit Court,” begins “The Grand Jury of Harlan County,” and no other county is mentioned therein. Hence, as was also held in Traughber v. Commonwealth, 198 Ky. 596, 249 S. W. 770, there is no merit in this contention.

Nor can it be said the verdict is flagrantly against the evidence, since the charge is supported by one witness for the. Commonwealth and denied only by the defendant, whose reputation for truth and veracity is shown, by his own witness, to be bad.

Judgment affirmed.