Saylor v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 08 May 1906 |
Citation | 93 S.W. 48,122 Ky. 776 |
Parties | SAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH. SMITH v. SAME. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Knox County.
"To be officially reported."
John Saylor and John Smith were convicted of an escape, and they appeal. Reversed.
W. R Black, for appellants.
N. B Hays, Atty. Gen., and C. H. Morris, for the Commonwealth.
These two appeals involving the same facts will be determined together. At the April term, 1905, of the Knox circuit court appellants were fined for assault. The judgment in the case in these words: When the verdict was returned, the circuit judge asked the defendants if they would pay or replevy the fine, and, they declining to do either, he directed the jailer to take charge of them. This the jailer did, and took them to jail. No order of court was made, except that above quoted, and no capias or mittimus was issued. The jailer simply took charge of the defendants under the verbal directions of the circuit judge. Two or three days after this the jailer put them in charge of a guard, who took them out to work on one of the county highways. While they were at work on the highway the guard needed some lumber for a culvert, and went off about 200 yards to get it, leaving appellants at work on the road. When he returned they had left the road, but were still in sight, and when he started after them they ran away. They were arrested a few days afterwards, and were indicted under section 1338, Ky. St. 1903: "If a prisoner confined on a sentence of imprisonment, or to be whipped, or under a capias, escapes jail, or if a person lawfully arrested under a charge for a violation of the criminal or penal laws forcibly or by bribery effects his escape from the officer or guard, he shall be confined in jail not less than six nor more than twelve months." They were found guilty, and their punishment fixed at six months' imprisonment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State in Interest of M. S.
...789, 16 Cal.Rptr. 111 (D.Ct.App.1961); People v. Hadley, 88 Cal.App.2d 734, 199 P.2d 382 (D.Ct.App.1948); Saylor v. Commonwealth, 122 Ky. 776, 93 S.W. 48 (Ct.App.1906); State v. Putnam, 248 Minn. 182, 79 N.W.2d 273 (Sup.Ct.1956); State v. Baker, 355 Mo. 1048, 199 S.W.2d 393 (Sup.Ct.1947); S......
-
State v. Baker
...prison until he serves his term or is pardoned, although he may have been hired out to work for a contractor for convict labor.' In Saylor v. Com., supra, it was held: 'The appellants, though not in jail, were the custody of the jailer, and when they escaped from the guard . . . they escape......
-
Hopkins v. Com.
...Commonwealth v. Houseman, 3 Ky.Law Rep. 331; Staton v. Commonwealth, 3 Ky.Law Rep. 471, 11 Ky.Op. 374; Saylor v. Commonwealth, 122 Ky. 776, 93 S.W. 48, 29 Ky.Law Rep. 337; 30 C.J.S. Escape Secs. 10, 15, 20(2) b, 26; 19 Am.Jur., Escaping, Prison Breaking, and Rescue, Sec. Reference is made t......
-
State v. Gilmore
...See, also, Cutter v. Buchanan, Ky., 286 S.W.2d 902; State v. Rardon, 221 Ind. 154, 160-161, 46 N.E.2d 605; Saylor v. Commonwealth, 122 Ky. 776, 93 S.W. 48; State v. Mead, 130 Conn. 106, 110-111, 32 A.2d 273; Taylor v. State, 229 Md. 128, 182 A.2d 52; State v. McInerney, 52 R.I. 203, 206, 16......