Amorous v. State

• Decision Date: 25 February 1907
• Docket Number: 186.
• Citation: 57 S.E. 999,1 Ga.App. 313
• Parties: AMOROUS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

57 S.E. 999

1 Ga.App. 313

AMOROUS v. STATE.

No. 186.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

February 25, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 929 of the Penal Code was not intended to dispense with the substance of good pleading, and there are some offenses where the charge cannot be laid in the exact language of the Code and for this reason the section uses the additional words "so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury." But the words of a statute are to be construed according to their ordinary significance, and in connection with the context.

Judged by the foregoing rule, an indictment under Pen. Code, § 342 is sufficient which alleges the carrying of a pistol to "a place of public worship," and locates that place by name. The term "a place of public worship," as it appears in section 342, ex vi termini imports the gathering and presence of persons for religious worship whether it be at a place usually devoted to that purpose or not.

The evidence is wholly circumstantial, and is not sufficient to show the defendant's guilt to the exclusion of every other reasonable supposition.

Error from Superior Court, Greene County; Lewis, Judge.

Ball Amorous was convicted of misdemeanor in the county court. Defendant's certiorari was overruled and dismissed by the superior court, and he brings error. Reversed.

Park & Park, for plaintiff in error.

J. E. Pottle, Sol. Gen., and James Davison, for the State.

RUSSELL J.

Ball Amorous was tried in the county court of Greene county on an indictment for a misdemeanor. The material parts of the indictment were as follows: "Charge and accuse *** Ball Amorous with the offense of a misdemeanor, for that the said Ball Amorous did, on the 4th day of July, 1906, in the county aforesaid, carry about his person a pistol to a place of public worship, to wit, Sanders Chapel Baptist Church, Colored." Before pleading to the merits he demurred to the indictment on several grounds; but the only one insisted upon is the third ground, which is as follows: "Said indictment is defective, in that it does not allege that divine worship or services were being held at the time it alleges the offense to have been committed, and fails to allege that any public gathering of any kind was being held at the time." The demurrer was overruled. The case then went to trial before the jury, and the defendant was convicted. The case was certioraried to the superior court, alleging errors in overruling the demurrer by the county judge and that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict.

The evidence, as appears from the answer of the judge of the county court, was as follows: Spot McWhorter testified: "I never saw the defendant before the 4th day of July, 1906. I saw him then at Sanders Chapel Baptist Church, Colored, in Greene county, at a Sunday school celebration going on there. I saw Ball there with a pistol. He took it out of his pockets and held it in his hand. He was going across the churchyard, and said he was not asleep, and dared any one to say he was. He was about 15 yards from the church house. I had not seen him there before, but saw him afterwards. He was not just driving by. He is the same man. There are a good many his size, but his features are different. The public road runs near the church. He was in a buggy, driving from the church towards the road. It was about 3 p. m. I was talking to Lena Cody. Sackett Sanders and Yank Sanders were around him. They were selling at the tables. Poll Daniel was Sunday school superintendent. They practiced for the celebration beforehand. Woodville and Mount Zion Sunday schools were invited. They had prayer and Sunday school songs. It was not Sunday. The meeting had not broke up." Yank Sanders testified: "Have known Ball Amorous a year or two. Saw him at the Sunday school convention. He left soon after I saw him. He had a pistol. He came driving up in the crowd, and Spot hollered at him, and asked him if he was asleep or drunk. He snatched his pistol out. It was about 3:30 p. m." In order to avoid a traverse, the following agreement, amendatory of the answer, was made, and appears in the record, to wit: "It is agreed that neither witness saw the defendant until he was on the church grounds, and this agreement is made before the judge of the superior court of the Ocmulgee circuit at the trial of the certiorari. This December 17, 1906." This agreement was signed by counsel for the state and defendant. Upon the hearing, the judge of the superior court overruled and dismissed defendant's certiorari, and the judgment of the judge in overruling the certiorari is assigned as error.

Only two questions are presented for consideration: (1) Should the certiorari have been sustained because the indictment was defective? (2) If the indictment is good, was the evidence insufficient to authorize a conviction? And should the certiorari, for that reason, have been sustained? Pen. Code § 929, declares that "every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and...