Case Name: Jonathan Horsfall, Jailer of Newport, vs. Commonwealth, ex rel. Henry Hamilton, Jailer of Campbell County
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1866-12-19
Citations: 1 Bush 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonathan Horsfall, Jailer of Newport, vs. Commonwealth, ex rel. Henry Hamilton, Jailer of Campbell County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
CASE 29 — MOTION
DECEMBER 19.
Jonathan Horsfall, Jailer of Newport, vs. Commonwealth, ex rel. Henry Hamilton, Jailer of Campbell County.
APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CRIMINAL COURT.
The city jail of Newport being appropriated to municipal uses, and under the care and supervision of a special keeper, independent of the county jailer, if a prisoner is committed, as he may be, to the city jail, the county jailer will neither have control over such prisoner nor be responsible for his safe-keeping.
E. W. Hawkins and Oliver W. Root, For Appellant,
CITED—
2 Revised Statutes, p. 222.
Act of Feb. 18, 1860, and page 115, Laws of Newport.
Laws of Newport, pp. 102,184, 210, 209, 270, 258, 213.
Sec. 11, art. 8, Constitution of Kentucky.
Sec. 1, art. 3, chap. 78, Rev. Stat.
Sec. 6, art. 2, chap. 91, Rev. Stat.
Act Feb. 27, 1856, 1 Stanton, p. 345.
J. R. Hallam, For Appellee,
CITED—
Act of Feb. 5, 1866, Myers’ Sup., 697.
3 Metcalfe, 237 ; Low vs. Commonwealth.
Act of Feb. 27,1856,' 1 Stant. Rev. Stat., 345.
2 Stant. Rev. Stat., 346, 347, 348.
Act of Feb. 11, 1864, Myers’ Sup., 279-80.
John M. Harlan, Attorney General, On same side.

Opinion:
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion op the court:
The legislation of the State, and city ordinances harmonizing with it, appropriated the city jail in Newport to municipal uses, under the care and superintendence of a special keeper, independent of the county jail and County jailer, whose duties and responsibilities are confined to the county jail, and cannot conflict with those of the city jailer. If a State prisoner be, as he may be, committed to the city jail, his custodian will be the city jailer, and the county jailer will neither have control over him nor be responsible for his safe-keeping; and, consequently, he has no official right of visitorial access to, or supervision over, the city jail.
Wherefore, the judgment giving the appellee, as county jailer, such rights over the appellant as city jailer, is reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to dismiss the proceeding.