Jones v. Com.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1903
• Citation: 115 Ky. 592,74 S.W. 263
• Parties: JONES v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

74 S.W. 263

115 Ky. 592

JONES v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 20, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.

"To be officially reported."

Frank Jones was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Reversed.

Julian B. Bourne, for appellant.

C.J Pratt and M. R. Todd, for the Commonwealth.

PAYNTER J.

The indictment charges that the appellant "did unlawfully willfully, feloniously, and with force and violence, and by putting in fear one A. B. Tilton, take from his person and presence ten dollars in United States currency, bank notes gold and silver coin, commonly known as money, the personal property of said A. B. Tilton, with the felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof, and to permanently convert the same to his own use." On the trial of the case A. B. Tilton, referred to in the indictment, testified that he was in the betting shed of the Kentucky Trotting Association, looking at the pool sellers' bulletin; that he had $10 in his vest pocket; that the defendant was standing in front of him, with his back to him; that while in that position he felt something touch his breast; that he immediately grabbed and looked down, when he saw defendant's hand, which he had grabbed, was 12 or 14 inches from witness' vest pocket; that defendant pulled and tried to get away, and slipped the money from his right to his left hand. From the facts proven it is evident that the money was taken from Tilton by stealth. The party was not put in fear; neither was violence used in taking the money. This court in Commonwealth v. Prewitt, 82 Ky. 240 defined robbery in the language of the common law, which is "the felonious and forcible taking from the person of another of goods or money to any value by violence or putting him in fear." This court in other cases has recognized this as the proper definition of robbery. No violence was employed in taking the money. It is true that, after Tilton discovered that his money had been taken, he sought by force which the defendant resisted, to regain possession of it, and prevent his escape. At the time the defendant was seized, he had the money in his possession. The asportation was complete. He had the money as much in his possession when his hand was seized as he would have had had more time elapsed. He had succeeded in placing it in his pocket or in the hands of an accomplice. The force used did not accompany the taking of the money, but in...