Bryant v. State

• Decision Date: 14 October 1910
• Docket Number: (No. 2,877.)
• Citation: 8 Ga.App. 389,69 S.E. 121
• Parties: BRYANT v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

69 S.E. 121

(8 Ga.App. 389)

BRYANT

v.STATE.

(No. 2, 877.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 14, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Criminal Law (§ 915^*)—Writ of Error-Reservation of Grounds of Review—Error in Refusing to Quash Accusation.

Alleged error in refusing to quash an accusation is not properly presented for review through the medium of a motion for a new trial.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2152-2158; Dec. Dig. § 915.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 29*)—Larceny (§ 15*)— Grades of Offense.

The same transaction may constitute both simple larceny and larceny after trust, and in such cases the offender may be prosecuted for and convicted of either offense.

(a) If a person, who at the time intends to steal an article of personal property, fraudulently induces the owner to hire it to him, and he thereupon steals it, he may be convicted either of simple larceny or of larceny after trust.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 29:* Larceny, Cent. Dig. §§ 39-42; Dec. Dig. § 15.*]

Error from City Court of Quitman; J. G. McCall, Judge.

Peter Bryant was convicted of larceny, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Grover C. Edmondson, for plaintiff in error.

S. M. Turner, Sol., for the State.

POWELL, J. The prosecutor ran a bicycle shop. The defendant came in and stated that he wanted to hire a bicycle to ride to the railroad depot. The prosecutor let him have the bicycle, and the defendant paid five cents for the hire of it. He rode away, and was not seen again until he was arrested in another town, some distance away, with the bicycle still in his possession. There were circumstances connected with the manner in which the defendant came into the prosecutor's place of business which indicated very clearly that he intended to steal the bicycle at the time he hired it from the prosecutor, and that his claim that he worked at the railroad shops and wanted to ride to the depot on a temporary mission was a mere ruse to get possession of the property. The defendant was tried and convicted of simple larceny.

1. The first point presented in the motion for a new trial is that the court erred in overruling a motion to quash the accusation on the ground that it was not drawn by the solicitor, as required by the act creating the court; the fact being that it was dictated by the solicitor to an amanuensis, who did the writing, though the solicitor personally signed it. A point of legal argument may be well taken, or at least plausible, for one of two reasons: Because of its inherent merit, or because it states a proposition which, while not inherently meritorious, has gained standing by reason of its announcement by some court; for courts do sometimes, if not ofttimes, announce propositions that are not inherently sound, and the unsound announcements may become precedents. As the point here presented is palpably without point inherently considered, and as no decision from this or any other court is cited in support of it, we are led to believe that its only noteworthy characteristic is its novelty. But, even if it were a point of any merit, it is not well presented; for it is well settled that alleged error in refusing to quash an indictment cannot properly be complained of through the medium of a motion for a new trial.

2. There is, however, properly presented in the motion for a new trial a question which is not so easy of solution. This point is that the evidence shows a case of larceny after trust, and not of simple larceny; the former being a felony, not within the jurisdiction of the court in which the case was tried, and the latter a misdemeanor. In Abrams v. State, 121 Ga. 170, 48 S. E. 965, it was held that "where one borrows another's property, with no intention at...