Bartlett v. City of Paducah

• Decision Date: 06 March 1906
• Citation: 91 S.W. 264
• Parties: BARTLETT v. CITY OF PADUCAH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

91 S.W. 264

BARTLETT v. CITY OF PADUCAH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 6, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by W. W. Bartlett against the city of Paducah. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. Mark Worten, for appellant.

Campbell & Campbell, for appellee.

NUNN J.

This action was brought by the appellant against the appellee to recover damages, as he alleged, for depriving him of his liberty, and placing him in involuntary servitude, by forcing him against his will to work on the streets of the appellee city. He alleged that in the month of April, 1904, he was arrested and carried before the police court of the city on a charge of being drunk, in violation of an ordinance enacted by appellee, on which charge he was fined $1 and costs, the whole amounting to $4, but that no work penalty was placed upon him by the judgment of the court, in the event he did not pay or replevy the fine and costs, and that no imprisonment or work penalty was authorized by the ordinance under which he was fined. He further alleged that his work on the streets was not a penalty imposed, or punishment inflicted upon him, in any way, by a judgment of the court or the verdict of any jury, and claims that this was imposed upon him without any authority of law, and contrary to the charter of cities of the second class, and in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the state and United States. He also alleged many facts in aggravation, calculated to increase the amount of recovery, but not necessary to state in this opinion. The court sustained a demurrer to this petition and dismissed it, and the appellant asks a reversal.

The appellant makes no complaint of his arrest or conviction. He concedes that the case of Stone v. City of Paducah, 86 S.W. 531, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 717, settles all the questions against him but the one; and that is the working of him upon the streets, when the judgment against him fixing the fine and costs did not also authorize and direct him to be worked upon the streets in the event he failed to replevy the same and cites several authorities which he claims sustain his position. The authorities referred to construe section 1377 Ky. St. 1903, which reads as follows: "When the punishment for a crime is a fine, or imprisonment in the county jail, or both, the jury may, in their discretion, if the defendant is a male, provide in their verdict that the defendant shall work at hard labor until the fine and costs or...