Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

241 S.W.2d 988

Gibson v. Bax

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided August 27, 1951

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1951-08-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1954

1 state decisions

Relies on Roper v. Roper · Sebastian v. Rose · Gibson v. Stiles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-08-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WADDILL, Commissioner.

¶1This opinion is rendered pursuant to an order of this Court of August 20, 1951, affirming the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

¶2Kenneth Bernal Gibson is in jail for contempt of court. The contempt order, which divests him of his liberty, was issued for civil contempt. Roper v. Roper, 242 Ky. 658, 47 S.W.2d 517; Sebastian v. Rose, 135 Ky. 197, 122 S.W. 120. His release was denied by this Court as an “insolvent debtor” in the case of Gibson v. Stiles, Ky., 240 S.W.2d 609. His incarcera-' tion was ordered by a Judge of the Chancery Branch of the Jefferson Circuit Court, following a hearing on a rule issued against him for disobedience of an order of that court directing him to pay alimony.

¶3In an effort to escape further punishment he has instituted this habeas corpus proceeding in the Criminal Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. The court dismissed his petition upon the ground that the Criminal Branch of the Jefferson Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to hear the writ.

¶4A separation of the jurisdiction of the criminal and civil courts in counties having a population of a hundred fifty-thousand or more is expressly provided for in Section 137 of our Constitution. Jeffer*989son is the only county to which this section now applies. In Gardner v. Allen, 311 Ky. 147, 223 S.W.2d 723, we held that the Criminal Branch of the Jefferson Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal proceeding'; however, in a civil proceeding, it was necessary under Section 137 of our Constitution, for the writ to be heard by a judge of some branch other than the "Criminal Division of that Court.

¶5It follows, therefore, that the court’s dismissal of the writ for lack of jurisdiction was proper. In Gibson v. Stiles, cited above, appropriate procedure was indicated for appellant to follow in the event he felt aggrieved by Judge Speck-man’s order.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/241/sw2d/988 · .json · Public domain