<title type="main">George Sidle v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appeal Edition created from new transcripts of this manuscript. Initial upload of this work's facsimile images and metadata to FromThePage for editing Kentucky Historical Society Digital Collections Administrator of the CWGK Migration transcription project on FromThePage Kentucky Historical Society Digital Collections Kentucky Historical Society Digital Collections made 2 edits between June 21, 2025 and June 21, 2025. Dynamic TEI export from FromThePage (version 22.10)

This image and transcription is publicly accessible. The image appears courtesy of the repository named in the Source Description. The transcription and annotation were undertaken by Kentucky Historical Society staff, volunteers, and interns. If referencing this document title, accession number, and permanent URL.

 November 12, 2025 Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives Office of the Governor, Thomas E. Bramlette: Governor's official correspondence file, petitions for pardons, remissions, and respites 1863-1867 KYR-0001-004-0255 BR8-404

1863-12-11 Legal/Financial English Version 1 of page "2": Changes to page transcript. Version 0 of page "2": Empty transcript -- probably initial upload of page facsimile. Version 1 of page "1": Changes to page transcript. Version 0 of page "1": Empty transcript -- probably initial upload of page facsimile.
1

State of Kentucky Court of Appeals } Decr 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

2

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.

1863, Dec. 11th. Affirmed.
Harrison.