Summary
In Commonwealth v. C. O. R. Co., 128 Ky. 749, 110 S.W. 253, where the indictment was practically the same as the one before us, this court held the trial court exercised a proper discretion in requiring the Commonwealth to furnish a bill of particulars because the indictment, though good, was so general in its terms that it did not, reasonably apprise the defendant of the particular offense for which it would be tried, and hence did not fairly afford it with such reasonable information as to enable it to prepare any defense it might have.
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. L. N. R. Co.Opinion
Decided October 16, 1925.
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court.
FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and W.J. BAXTER, Commonwealth Attorney, for appellant.
BENTON DAVIS for appellee.
Affirming.
This is a companion case to that of Commonwealth v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, 210 Ky. 629, 275 S.W. —. For the reasons stated in that case, this case is affirmed.