Richmond v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Richmond v. Commonwealth

296 S.W.2d 219

DecidedNovember 30, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 296 S.W.2d 219 (Richmond v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richmond v. Commonwealth, 296 S.W.2d 219 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted in the Muhlenberg Circuit Court of selling alcoholic beverages in local option territory, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and imprisonment of 60 days in jail. He appeals, contending that the court erred: (1) in failing to grant his motion for a continuance, and (2) in overruling his motion for a new trial.

An examination of the record convinces us that the court properly overruled his motion for a continuance and his motion for a new trial.

The motion’ for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted in the Muhlenberg Circuit Court of selling alcoholic beverages in local option territory, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and imprisonment of 60 days in jail. He appeals, contending that the court erred: (1) in failing to grant his motion for a continuance, and (2) in overruling his motion for a new trial.

An examination of the record convinces us that the court properly overruled his motion for a continuance and his motion for a new trial.

The motion’ for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 S.W.2d 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1956.