Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1902 |
| Citation | 42 S.E. 795,116 Ga. 559 |
| Parties | BROWN. v. STATE. LEONARD. v. SAME (two cases). |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW—OVERRULING DEMURRER-EXCEPTIONS—RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS—DEMURRER.
1. A judgment overruling a demurrer to an indictment may be made the subject of exceptions pendente lite, and error may be assigned on such exceptions in a bill of exceptions sued out in due time, complaining of the final judgment in the case. In the case of Banks v. State, 39 S. E. 947, 114 Ga. 115, there were no exceptions pendente lite.
2. An indictment charging the accused with the offense of receiving stolen goods, in that after "a certain lot of brass, to wit, five thousand pounds, " had been stolen, the accused received the same, "to wit, certain lot of brass fittings, to wit, four hundred pounds, of the value of three hundred dollars, " knowing the same to have been stolen by the person from whom received, should have been held bad on special demurrer raising the objection that the allegations as to the articles received were not sufficiently specific; the description not being sufficient to identify the articles alleged to have been received, nor to put the accused on notice of the charge he was to meet.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Chatham county; Pope Barrow, Judge.
Richard Brown, D. M. Leonard, and E. A. Leonard were convicted of crime, and bring error. Reversed.
Robt. L. Colding, for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Osborne, Sol. Gen., for the State.
COBB, J. Brown and the Leonards were indicted for receiving stolen goods. They were convicted, and complain that the court erred in overruling a demurrer to the indictment, as well as in refusing to grant them a new trial.
1. The demurrer was overruled on June 25, 1902. Exceptions pendente lite complaining of this ruling were certified and entered of record on July 17, 1902, during the term at which the ruling was made. The motion for a new trial was overruled August 13, 1902. The bill of exceptions complaining of the latter ruling, and also assiguing error on the exceptions pendente lite, was tendered within 20 days from the date last mentioned, and was duly certified. The law allowing exceptions pendente lite applies in criminal cases, and the exceptions in the present case were certified in due time. See Strickland v. State, 115 Ga. 222, 41 S. E. 713. In Banks v. State, 114 Ga. 115, 39 S. E. 947, there were no exceptions pendente lite.
2. The Indictment charged that one Charles Kimball had been lawfully convicted of a burglary of the storehouse of Rourke & Sons, a firm composed of named persons, and that he "did steal from said storehouse of said firm a certain lot of brass, to wit, five thousand pounds, the property of said firm, " and that the accused, "well knowing said personal property to have been stolen and feloniously taken as aforesaid, did then and there receive same of and from the said Charles Kimball, to wit, certain lot of brass fittings, to wit, four hundred pounds, of the value of three hundred dollars, the property of said firm, contrary to the laws, " etc. The demurrer raises the objection that that part of the indictment describing the articles alleged to have been received is not sufficiently specific; that it does not identify the articles, and does not put the accused on notice of the charge they are called on to defend. All that is necessary to show that the term "fitting" Is very general and comprehensive is to look at the definition of the same in some of the standard lexicons. A "fitting" has been defined to be: "Anything used in fitting up; especially (pl.) necessary fixtures or apparatus; as, the fittings of a church or study; gas fittings." Webst. Diet. It has also been defined as "anything employed in fitting up permanently; used generally in the plural in the sense of fixtures, tackle, apparatus, equipment; as the fittings of an office; gas fittings." Cent. Diet. It will not be contended, we suppose, that an Indictment for larceny, describing the articles stolen as a certain lot of fittings, of a given weight and value, would be sufficient as against a special demurrer. Walthour v. State, 114 Ga. 75, 39 S. E. 872. Does the mere addition of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ayers v. State
- Ayers v. State
-
Pharr v. State
...or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury." However, as stated in Brown v. State, 116 Ga. 559, 562, 42 S. E. 795, 796, "this section was not intended to dispense with the substance of good pleading, nor to deny to one accused of crime the righ......
-
Pharr v. State
...for his defense." Carson v. State, 22 Ga.App. 551 (1), 96 S.E. 500. See, also, Walthour v. State, 114 Ga. 75, 39 S.E. 872; Brown v. State, 116 Ga. 559 (2), 42 S.E. 795; Sanders v. State, 86 Ga. 717, 12 S.E. Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32, 13 S.E. 829; Ayers v. State, 3 Ga.App. 305 (1), 59 S.E. ......