The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society Volume 8 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 edition. Excerpt: ...grounds on which the question was decided, the court said: "The governed can only preserve their liberty by a division of power, and making the several depositaries of authority guards and checks upon each other. In proportion to the concentration of controlling influence with a few or a single tribunal, however numerous, are the social and civil rights of man endangered. The late attempt of the Court of Appeals to seize upon the power confided by the Constitution of the State to the County Court relative to the office of jailor impels us to protest against such usurpation and declare the grounds of our resistance." The Court further said: "We protest nejainst the intermeddling of the Court of Appeals in the matter, and insist that they shall be restrained to their constitutional sphere of action." Further along in the opinion, the Court said: "If the distinction between executive and judicial were not palpable to the bluntest mind, by reference to the case of Taylor vs. The Commonwealth, 3 J. J. Marshall, page 401, it might be learned." The opinion closed with the following statement: ."Believing that our rights have been invaaed by another branch of the government styling itself the Court of Appeals, and that it is much safer to decline the exercise of all doubtful authority than to attempt to correct imaginary errors, we declare to the world that we will not record the mandate of the Court of Appeals." On the 8th of June, following, the Court of Appeals issued attachments against James Shannon, Dandridge S. Crockett, Samuel B. Scowfield, Robert C. McKee, Franklin Chinn and Samuel Bristow, magistrates of Franklin county, returnable the fourth day of the term, for contempt in failing to attend the Court in...