Wood v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 08 January 1896
• Citation: 33 S.W. 729
• Parties: WOOD et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

33 S.W. 729

WOOD et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 8, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Taylor county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Proceedings by the commonwealth to recover of J. M. Wood and others sureties on the forfeited bail bond of W. W. Anderson indicted for murder. From a judgment against the sureties they appeal. Reversed.

Garnett & Garnett, J. M. Wood, R. L. Foster, G. W. Towles, and D. T Towles, for appellants.

T. L. Edelin and W. H. Sweeney, for the Commonwealth.

PRYOR C.J.

At the June term of the Taylor circuit court for the year 1892, W W. Anderson was indicted for the murder of one Robert Crouch. The defense interposed was that of insanity, and at the first trial, the jury failing to agree, the accused was permitted to give bail. He deposited with his attorneys $3,000 in money to indemnify them as his sureties, and upon the execution of the bond was released from custody. When the case was again called for trial the accused failed to appear, and his bond was forfeited, the sureties being summoned to show cause why judgment should not go against them for the $3,000. The sureties resisted the judgment on the ground that an inquest of lunacy had been held by the police judge of the town, and by the verdict of the jury the accused was adjudged to be a lunatic, and was at the time confined in the Central Asylum under the order made by the police judge. For further defense they produced and filed the remission of the entire forfeiture by the executive before judgment. The commonwealth, in replying to the answer of the sureties, alleged fraud and collusion between the sureties and the accused, under which the inquest was held, in order to avoid the result of a criminal prosecution, and to take from the circuit court the exercise of its jurisdiction over the person of the accused. After sustaining of a special demurrer, as well as overruling a general demurrer to some of the pleadings,-questions not necessary to be considered on this appeal,-the parties went to trial on the issue of fraud, and that of jurisdiction on the part of the police judge to hold the inquest; and on the hearing a judgment was rendered against the sureties for $3,000. During the progress of the trial the committee of the lunatic appointed by the order of the police judge asked to be made a party, that he might protect the interests of the lunatic, all the defendants claiming that the accused was a lunatic at the holding of the inquest, and at the time the case was being heard; and the right of the committee to be heard was denied. While there is evidence conducing to show a preconceived purpose on the part of some of the defendants at least to have this inquest held, still it is manifest that the conduct of...