Case Name: Silas Rogers v. Commonwealth
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1877-10-11
Citations: 9 Ky. Op. 597
Docket Number: 
Parties: Silas Rogers v. Commonwealth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 9
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Silas Rogers v. Commonwealth.
Criminal Law — Lost or Stolen Indictment.
"Where one is indicted for the illegal sale of liquors and the indictment is abstracted from the clerk’s office, and after one year such person is reindicted, and in the indictment it is stated it was to take the place of the missing indictment, it was proper to charge the jury that, if the offense was committed within one year prior to the finding of the first indictment, the accused was guilty.
APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.
October 11, 1877.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Judge Pryor:
The 28th Sec., Art. 1, Chap, on Crimes and Punishments, General Statutes, authorized the verdict and judgment in this case.
It appears that the indictments found at the March term, 1875, were abstracted from the clerk's office and that during that term the appellant had been indicted for keeping a tippling house. At the March term, 1876, this fact being made known to the court, the case was referred back to the grand jury, and another indictment returned in lieu of the one lost- or taken from the possession of the clerk.- The last indictment recites the fact that it was in room of the missing indictment.
The proof showing the selling, it was proper to say to the jury that if the offense was committted within one year prior to the finding of the first indictment the accused was guilty. The section of the General Statutes referred to expressly provides that the time intervening between the first indictment and the finding of the new indictment shall not be computed in the lapse of time or limitation that will bar the prosecution.
We perceive no objection-to the indictment. The accused is charged with keeping a tippling house in the county of Bath. There is a sufficient statement of the offense. The judgment is affirmed, '.
Nesbitt & Gudgell, for appellant.
Moss, for appellee.