Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles
-----------
RILEY v. COMMONWEALTH.
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY
55 S.W. 8; 1900 Ky. LEXIS 362; 21 Ky. L. Rptr. 1405
January 27, 1900, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from circuit court, Laurel county.
William Riley was convicted of the offense of detaining a female against her will, with intention to have carnal knowledge of her, and he appeals.
DISPOSITION: Dismissed.
COUNSEL: H. C. Hazelwood, D. K. Rawlings, and I. A. Wilburn, for appellant.
Clifton J. Pratt, for the Commonwealth.
JUDGES: WHITE, J.
OPINION BY: WHITE
OPINION
[*8] WHITE, J. Appellant was indicted in the Laurel circuit court charged with detaining a female against her will, with intention to have carnal knowledge of her. A verdict of guilty was returned, and his punishment fixed at three and one-half years in the penitentiary. There appears no final judgment in the record. A motion for new trial was overruled, and this appeal is prosecuted. So far as the record shows, the trial court may yet grant appellant a new trial. By section 335, Cr. Code, no appeal can be prosecuted except from a final judgment. There being, in this case, no final judgment, no appeal can be prosecuted. Dismissed.
----
March 1, 1900, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from circuit court, Laurel county.
William Riley was convicted of the offense of detaining a woman against her will, with intent to have carnal knowledge of her, and he appeals.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.
COUNSEL: H. C. Hazelwood, D. K. Rawlings, and J. A. Wilson, for appellant.
C. J. Pratt, for the Commonwealth.
JUDGES: WHITE, J.
OPINION BY: WHITE
OPINION
[*547] WHITE, J. Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of detaining a woman against her will, with intent to have carnal knowledge of her. His punishment was fixed at four years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.
The prosecutrix, a Mrs. Mitchell, testified that she was traveling along a path on the right side of the railroad, going towards Pittsburg, and when about opposite Reid's barn appellant called to her, from the other side of the railroad, and asked her if she was Mrs Ross. She answered, "No." Appellant then asked where she was going. Witness answered, "None of your business." Appellant then drew a pistol, and said, "Don't be so damned smart, I'll blow your brains out; I've got some money for you." Witness declined the money, and said she was a lady. At the time this conversation took place appellant was horseback, and on one side of a railroad cut, 12 or 15 feet [**2] deep, and witness on the other side of the cut. The horse could not have been ridden over the cut, and it is doubtful if a man could climb the bank. Witness and appellant continued on their way, both going towards Pittsburg. Appellant was drunk. It may be said that this evidence was corroborated. We are of opinion that this evidence [*548] of the witness Mrs. Mitchell wholly fails to show a detention. Appellant spoke to her, and she answered. There is not proof that she stopped at all. If she did, it was not from force or threats or show of force. Witness, by her own showing, was out of reach of appellant, and evidently did not fear him, as she went on following, after he rode away and left her. This does not make out the crime charged in the indictment. It was very reprehensible, ungentlemanly conduct, and is punishable under the laws, but it will not sustain a conviction under this charge. For the want of any evidence tending to show appellant guilty of the charge in the indictment, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial and for proceedings consistent herewith.
----
RILEY v. COMMONWEALTH.
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY
55 S.W. 547; 1900 Ky. LEXIS 504
March 1, 1900, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from circuit court, Laurel county.
William Riley was convicted of the offense of detaining a woman against her will, with intent to have carnal knowledge of her, and he appeals.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.
COUNSEL: H. C. Hazelwood, D. K. Rawlings, and J. A. Wilson, for appellant.
C. J. Pratt, for the Commonwealth.
JUDGES: WHITE, J.
OPINION BY: WHITE
OPINION
[*547] WHITE, J. Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of detaining a woman against her will, with intent to have carnal knowledge of her. His punishment was fixed at four years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.
The prosecutrix, a Mrs. Mitchell, testified that she was traveling along a path on the right side of the railroad, going towards Pittsburg, and when about opposite Reid's barn appellant called to her, from the other side of the railroad, and asked her if she was Mrs Ross. She answered, "No." Appellant then asked where she was going. Witness answered, "None of your business." Appellant then drew a pistol, and said, "Don't be so damned smart, I'll blow your brains out; I've got some money for you." Witness declined the money, and said she was a lady. At the time this conversation took place appellant was horseback, and on one side of a railroad cut, 12 or 15 feet [**2] deep, and witness on the other side of the cut. The horse could not have been ridden over the cut, and it is doubtful if a man could climb the bank. Witness and appellant continued on their way, both going towards Pittsburg. Appellant was drunk. It may be said that this evidence was corroborated. We are of opinion that this evidence [*548] of the witness Mrs. Mitchell wholly fails to show a detention. Appellant spoke to her, and she answered. There is not proof that she stopped at all. If she did, it was not from force or threats or show of force. Witness, by her own showing, was out of reach of appellant, and evidently did not fear him, as she went on following, after he rode away and left her. This does not make out the crime charged in the indictment. It was very reprehensible, ungentlemanly conduct, and is punishable under the laws, but it will not sustain a conviction under this charge. For the want of any evidence tending to show appellant guilty of the charge in the indictment, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial and for proceedings consistent herewith.
No comments:
Post a Comment