Broadwell v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 21 September 1895
• Citation: 98 Ky. 15,32 S.W. 141
• Parties: BROADWELL v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

32 S.W. 141

98 Ky. 15

BROADWELL v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 21, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county.

"To be officially reported."

Blanton & Berry, for appellant.

Wm. J Hendrick, for the Commonwealth.

PAYNTER J.

The accused, Broadwell, was indicted in the Harrison circuit court under section 1330 of the Kentucky Statutes, which reads as follows, to wit: "If any person shall be engaged, directly or indirectly, in running a horse, by way of practicing him or in running a horse race, on a public highway or on the street of any town or city, or shall ride or drive any horse in a gallop or run on or through the street of any city or town, he shall be fined not less than ten dollars for each offense." He was tried, found guilty, and fined $10, and, failing to pay or replevy the fine, was committed to jail. The accused filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his indictment, trial conviction, and that the law under which the prosecution took place was unconstitutional and void, because it does not fix the maximum fine that may be imposed. Upon filing the petition with W. W. Kimbrough, who is judge of the circuit court in which Harrison county is situated, and the judge who presided at the trial of the accused, he granted a writ of habeas corpus. Upon the hearing, the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed, and the appellant adjudged to comply with the order of the court. For that action this appeal is prosecuted.

From the view the court takes of the appeal, it is unnecessary to discuss the question as to the validity of the statute under which the prosecution took place. This court has no jurisdiction of an appeal when the fine is $10; and the fact that it is contended that the statute under which the fine is imposed is unconstitutional does not confer jurisdiction regardless of the amount involved on the appeal. The statute fixing the jurisdiction of this court must control.

This court has no appellate jurisdiction of orders or judgments of judges of courts trying writs of habeas corpus. The fact that the order of the circuit judge disposing of the writ was made during term time, and spread upon the order book of the court, does not alter the character of the judgment. An appeal does not lie from it any more than it would from such order made between terms of the court. The jurisdiction of this court only relates to final orders and...