Beck v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 27 April 1934
• Citation: 254 Ky. 160
• Parties: Beck et al. v. Commonwealth.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

254 Ky. 160

Beck et al. v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided April 27, 1934.

Ball. — Abduction of principal in bail bond and his removal into another state by officers of other state with aid of officers of Kentucky, and his detention in other state which prevented his appearance for trial, did not relieve sureties on bail bond, in absence of showing who officers aiding in abduction were, what office they held, and that principal could not secure his freedom in other state through habeas corpus.

Appeal from Muhlenberg Circuit Court.

HUBERT MEREDITH for appellants.

BAILEY P. WOOTTON, Attorney General, and H. HAMILTON RICE, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE DIETZMAN.

Affirming.

Albert Beck was under indictment in the Muhlenberg circuit court, charged with the crime of robbery. His bail was fixed at $750. On September 23, 1933, he executed a bail bond with appellants as sureties. When his case was called for trial, he failed to appear and an order was entered forfeiting his bond and directing that his sureties be summoned on the forfeiture. Summons having been duly served, the sureties appeared and filed their response. The commonwealth demurred to the response. The court sustained that demurrer and entered judgment against the appellants for $750. From the judgment so entered, this appeal is prosecuted.

The sole question presented on this appeal is as to the sufficiency of the response. In substance, it avers that Albert Beck was by officers of the state of Tennessee aided and abetted by officers of the state of Kentucky, abducted from the state of Kentucky, over Beck's protest and remonstrance and against his will and without the knowledge or consent of the appellants, and carried into the state of Tennessee, where he is held by that state for trial under an indictment there pending against him. The response does not state who the officers of Tennessee or Kentucky who participated in this abduction were, or what public office they held in either state. This summary of the response discloses that the reason for Beck's failure to appear when his case was called for trial in the Muhlenberg circuit court was not primarily his abduction from this state, but his detention by the state of Tennessee under an indictment there pending against him. The abduction from the state only brought Beck into the toils of the Tennessee authorities, but it was his detention by those authorities at the time...