International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Citation: 147 S.W. 1199,148 Ky. 572
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF AMERICA v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Decision Date: 28 May 1912

147 S.W. 1199

148 Ky. 572

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF AMERICA
v.
COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 28, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grayson County.

Penal action by the Commonwealth against the International Harvester Company of America. Judgment for the Commonwealth, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Arthur M. Rutledge and Humphrey & Humphrey, all of Louisville, for appellant.

James Garnett, Atty. Gen., J. R. Layman, of Elizabethtown, and C. V. Higdon, of Leitchfield, for appellee.

CARROLL, J.

In this penal action, instituted by the commonwealth against the appellant company, a trial before a jury was had, and a verdict rendered in favor of the commonwealth for $1,500. It is agreed by counsel for appellant that this case is in all respects--except as to the amount of recovery--identical with the case of Commonwealth v. International Harvester Company of America, tried in the Bullitt circuit court. From the judgment of the Bullitt circuit court an appeal was prosecuted to this court by the appellant company, and the opinion affirming the judgment of the Bullitt circuit court may be found in 147 Ky. 564, 144 S.W. 1064. It is also agreed that the evidence heard in the Bullitt county case was read to the jury in this case, with the same effect as if the witnesses had testified in person. Counsel for appellant frankly admit that the appeal in this case under that opinion is not prosecuted with the hope that a reversal might be had of this court, but with a view of getting a decision in this court, so that the case may be taken on a writ of error, in company with the Bullitt county case and other cases of like character, to the Supreme Court of the United States. We therefore adopt as the opinion of the court in this case the opinion of the court in the Bullitt county case, handed down March 16, 1912, and reported as stated in 147 Ky. 564, 144 S.W. 1064, with such changes in that opinion as to the name of the court and the amount of penalty as are necessary to conform to the facts of this case, to have the same force and effect as if it had been delivered in this case. Wherefore the judgment...