Commonwealth v. Tudor

62 S.W. 721, 110 Ky. 739, 1901 Ky. LEXIS 130
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided May 2, 1901·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Opinion op the court by

JUDGE WHITE

Dismissing.

The only question sought to be determined by this appeal is -as to the allowance by the court of the claims of •certain 'witnesses for the .prosecution on a continuance. The attorney for the Commonwealth objected to their claims because they had not been summoned on the written order of himself or the county attorney. The witnesses are not parties to this appeal, and the aggregate amount of their claims is $13.00. The adjudication of the question can not affect the. rights of the Commonwealth or accused in the trial of the case, and the appeal is clearly not within the provisions of section 337, Cr. Code Prac. We think it clear that, as presented, we have no jurisdiction. Appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Tudor, 62 S.W. 721, 110 Ky. 739, 1901 Ky. LEXIS 130 (Ky. Ct. App. 1901).

62 S.W. 721 (Commonwealth v. Tudor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LEVENE ET UX. v. City of Salem
229 P.2d 255 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1951)
Board of Trustees of Town of Auburn v. Chyle
75 S.W.2d 1039 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Commonwealth v. Cannut
211 S.W. 570 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1919)
City of Maysville v. Brooks
140 S.W. 665 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1911)
Harney v. City of Lexington
113 S.W. 115 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1908)
Pickerill v. City of Louisville
100 S.W. 873 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1907)
Hay v. City of Lexington
71 S.W. 867 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1903)