Adams v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 12 January 1923 |
| Citation | 197 Ky. 235 |
| Parties | Adams v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Cumberland Circuit Court.
P. SANDIDGE for appellant.
CHAS. I. DAWSON, Attorney General, and THOS. B. McGREGOR, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Carrying saddle pockets on his horse, appellant Adams rode into the county seat on his way to a blacksmith shop to have his horse shod. He passed the police officer of the town, who observed that he carried saddle pockets which appeared to be full of something. This aroused the suspicion of the officer, who followed him to the blacksmith shop, where appellant had dismounted and was about to hitch his horse, but the officer was unable to see the saddle pockets. Appellant left the shop, directing the blacksmith to shoe his horse, but the officer, suspecting that the saddle pockets were hidden about the shop and that they contained intoxicating liquors, took a seat in the shop and wrote a note, as he says, to some one uptown to send him a search warrant. In about an hour some one brought him a search warrant with which he proceeded to search a small crib in the shop and found a pair of saddle pockets resembling the ones on which appellant rode into town, in which saddle pockets he found a quantity of moonshine liquor which he carried before the county judge and which was later used as evidence on the trial of appellant after he had been indicted in the circuit court. From a resulting conviction, Adams prosecutes this appeal.
The officer who made the search under the warrant was the principal witness for the Commonwealth, and detailed the facts as set out above but with more particularity. He was asked to produce the search warrant under which he acted in making the search, and he answered that he thought the warrant was at his house and that he thought it had been issued and signed by the county judge, but of this he was not sure, nor did he know who the witnesses were that made affidavit on which the warrant was issued, but he suggested the names of two persons whom he thought made such affidavit. He did not, however, undertake to give the substance of the warrant nor of the affidavit upon which it was issued. He stated, however, that the witnesses whom he thought had made the affidavit were not present at the time appellant rode into town and left his saddle pockets at the blacksmith shop, and made it quite plain that such witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial