State of Kentucky
Court of Appeals } Dec^r 11th, 1863.
Geo, Sidle, appellant,
vs, } Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court.
Comwlth, appellee

The Court being sufficiently advised, delivered the following opinion herein to wit.

It may be conceded that in view of the evidence & of the instructions given at the instance of the Comwlth, the refusal by the Court to give the instruction asked by the deft was erroneous & highly prejudicial to his case.

But the bill of exceptions does not show that all the instructions given by the Court are Contained in it. & by the Criminal Code, a judgment Cannot be reversed for an error in instructing or refusing to instruct the Jury unless the bill of exceptions contain all the instructions given by the Court. (sec 335,)

The cases of Clem, vs, Comwlth. 3, Met, 11, & Hamilton v. Comwlth. decided June term 1863, are very similar to the present case. & are conclusive as to the effect to be given to the Section referred to. In the former case it was said that the code of practice in criminal cases abounds with restrictions upon

upon the Jurisdiction & power of this Court in cases of felony & that these restrictions cannot be disregarded whatevermay bethe hardshipof theirapplicationto particularcases.

For the reasons stated the Judgment of Conviction must be affirmed,
A Copy attest.

1¹/2
Sidle
vs. } Co Opinion
Comwlth.