13 S.W.2d 790 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1929
Granting appeal.
This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Johnson circuit court, imposing a fine of $100 and 6 months' imprisonment on Jimmie Daniel for a violation *605
of the prohibition law. The only ground urged for reversal is that defendant's trial was not held at an authorized term of the Johnson circuit court. Johnson and Martin counties are in the Twenty-Fourth judicial district. The regular terms of the Johnson circuit court begin on the first Monday in February, second Monday in June, and third Monday in November, respectively, and continue for a period of 24 days each. The Martin circuit court begins on the first Monday in April and August, and the third Monday in November (October) — see Meek v. Stone,
Section 971-13, Ky. Statutes, provides: "In each county of each judicial district, except counties having circuit courts of continuous session, there shall be held each year the number of terms of the circuit court provided for by law, and the term in any district may be extended if the business requires so that it does not interfere with any other term in the district."
It is the first duty of the circuit judge to hold the regular terms of court established by law. Under the conditions named in the statute, he may extend these terms, but not so as to interfere with a regular term elsewhere in the district. Naturally two terms could not be conducted in different counties at the same time without interfering with each other. It is said, however, that the Martin circuit court was concluded and had adjourned prior to August 20, at which time the Johnson circuit court reconvened. We do not think this obviates the objection. If the order extending the June term of the Johnson circuit court was valid, that term of court overlapped and embraced the August term of the Martin circuit *606 court as fixed by statute. True the Johnson circuit court had recessed during the time the Martin circuit court was in session. But there was a conflict in the terms of the two courts. If the statute were construed to permit this practice, it would logically follow that the circuit judge could extend each term in every county in his district to the first day of the succeeding term, and recess and reconvene at his pleasure, and thus keep all the courts of his district in practically continuous session. Clearly this is forbidden by statute. Aside from this, a court can only control its orders during the term at which they are rendered, and motions for a new trial in criminal cases can be entered at any time during the term; for this and many other reasons it is highly essential that the end of the term be fixed and certain. And this course, if pursued to its logical conclusion, would result in doubt and uncertainty contrary to the spirit and purpose of the statute.
The legislative will in regard to regular terms is indicated by the authority granted the circuit judge to call special
terms, either by order regularly entered of record at a regular term or by posting notice at the courthouse door. Such special term may be held while a regular court is in session in another county of the district. And provision is made for every character of contingency. That provision has been given a liberal construction by this court. Crenshaw v. Commonwealth (Ky.)
Wherefore the appeal is granted, the judgment set aside, and a new trial granted. *607
