Oliver v. Commonwealth

25 S.W. 600, 95 Ky. 372, 1894 Ky. LEXIS 31
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided March 10, 1894·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

CHIEF-JUSTICE BENNETT

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was -indicted, tried and convicted of the statutory crime of cutting and sawing off the brands of saw-logs. The indictment was signed by the foreman of the grand jury and returned into court and received by it. Rut it was not indorsed “ a true bill.”

Section 119 of the Criminal Code provides that the “ concurrence of twelve grand jurors is required to find [373] an indictment; when so found, it must be indorsed‘a true bill/ and the indorsement signed by the foreman.”

The provision of the Code supra i<s mandatory, not merely directory, that the indictment shall he “ indorsed a true hill and signed by the foreman,” which indorsement is the only legal and competent evidence that the paper filed is an indictment legally found; and unless it is so indorsed the paper is not an indictment legally returned into court and which the accused is not hound to answer. It is not a valid indictment, and it should have been dismissed upon demurrer.

The case is reversed, with directions to dismiss the indictment.

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

Oliver v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W. 600, 95 Ky. 372, 1894 Ky. LEXIS 31 (Ky. Ct. App. 1894).

25 S.W. 600 (Oliver v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dunn v. Commonwealth
79 S.W.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1935)
Bowling v. Commonwealth
19 S.W.2d 1086 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1929)
Cochran v. Commonwealth
275 S.W. 810 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
Terrell v. Commonwealth
240 S.W. 81 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1922)