Crawford v. State

• Decision Date: 30 September 1908
• Docket Number: 962.
• Citation: 62 S.E. 501,4 Ga.App. 789
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

62 S.E. 501

4 Ga.App. 789

CRAWFORD v. STATE.

No. 962.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

September 30, 1908

Syllabus by the Court.

That the affidavit upon which an accusation is based is defective in not properly denominating or describing the offense charged, will not afford ground for quashing the accusation if the identity of the transaction set forth in the affidavit with that charged to be a crime in the accusation is apparent.

That instead of being charged with the offense of being a cheat and swindler, one is charged by accusation with "cheating and swindling," will not of itself authorize the accusation to be quashed. That the offense charged is improperly denominated in an indictment or other accusation does not necessarily vitiate such accusation. The test by which the sufficiency of the accusation, as well as the particular offense charged, against the defendant, is to be determined, is not the denomination which the pleader applies to the offense but the nature of the criminal act alleged, and the fullness with which the act is set forth.

An allegation that certain representations are fraudulent is a sufficient statement that such representations were made with intent to defraud.

(a) An intent to defraud by false representations is sufficiently alleged, when such representations are charged as fraudulently made.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, False Pretenses, § 32.]

(b) One may be defrauded by representations, the truth or falsity of which has not been investigated.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, False Pretenses, § 13.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, p. 2961.]

The solicitor of a city court has the right to amend an accusation prior to arrangement; and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, interlineations appearing in an accusation will be presumed to have been made at the proper time and by the proper authority.

Where a presentment is returned within the time required by the statute of limitations, and a nolle prosequi is thereafter entered thereon for any informality, the prosecution may be continued by an accusation in the city court having jurisdiction of the offense, provided such accusation be preferred within six months from the date of the order of nolle prosequi.

While a new trial should be granted whenever it appears that the finding of a jury has been influenced by improper remarks of a judge, still, as some liberality of expression must be allowed the judge in ruling upon testimony, it should clearly be made to appear both that the remark was improper and that the movant's case was prejudiced thereby.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, § 2182.]

The contents of a writing, which has been lost or destroyed, or otherwise has become inaccessible, may be proved by a properly authenticated copy of that writing appearing in the brief of evidence, which was approved by the trial judge upon a former trial between the same parties.

Assignments of error, which do not direct the attention of the court to the specific error of which complaint is made, will not be considered.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, § 2957.]

Where a paper, containing the finding of a jury between the same parties, is admitted by the court without concealment of the former verdict, and the jury are properly cautioned by the court, it is not to be presumed that the jury were influenced in their finding by knowledge of the former verdict.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, §§ 3061-3066.]

A new trial will not be granted upon minor inaccuracies of a court's charge, appearing in disjointed fragments, where by an examination of the charge as a whole the apparent errors are dissipated.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1990-1995.]

Where a defendant is charged with the offense of being a common cheat and swindler by means of specific false representations, which he is alleged to have made, the fact that the party alleged to have been defrauded did not exercise reasonable diligence in preventing the fraud affords no defense to the accused.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, False Pretenses, § 27.]

Where one, either by false representations or by fraudulent concealment of material facts, deceives prospective purchasers of property and induces them to purchase, to their damage, what they otherwise would not have purchased, the belief of the seller that he is giving full value to the purchaser is immaterial, unless the evidence shows that either the seller himself or some one else has acquainted the purchaser with all of the material facts as they really exist in relation to the transaction as to which he has been deceived. One cannot be deceived by false representations which he knows to be false; but, on the other hand, it will not be presumed, in favor of one who has made false representations, that the party to whom these representations were made knows them to be untrue.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, False Pretenses, § 13.]

The requests contained in the eighteenth and nineteenth grounds of the amended motion are fully covered in the charge of the court to the jury, and hence it was not error to refuse these requests.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 2011.]

The evidence authorized the verdict.

Error from City Court of Bainbridge; W. M. Harrell, Judge.

J. R. Crawford was convicted of cheating and swindling, and he brings error. Affirmed.

T. S. Hawes, for plaintiff in error.

M. E. O'Neal, Sol., for the State.

RUSSELL J.

J. R. Crawford was tried in the city court of Bainbridge upon an accusation charging him, jointly with one J. R. D. Laster, with the offense of cheating and swindling. For a former report of this case, see 117 Ga. 247, 43 S.E. 762. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant's motion for new trial was overruled.

The accusation was based upon an affidavit made by one Thomas Chason on April 18, 1907, alleging the offense to have been committed on September 22, 1900. The accusation was as follows: "State of Georgia, Decatur County. In the City Court of Bainbridge, March Term, 1907, Held in April of Said Year. The following accusation is founded upon the foregoing affidavit of Thomas Chason, who now, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charges and accuses J. R. D Laster and J. R. Crawford with the offense of cheating and swindling, for that the said J. R. D. Laster and J. R. Crawford, on the 22d day of September, in the year 1900, in the county of Decatur, then and there unlawfully and with force and arms did falsely and fraudulently represent to Chason & Reynolds, a firm composed of Thomas Chason and J. F. Reynolds, that said Crawford and Laster were the owners of all the timber on a place known as the 'Harvey Place,' in said county and state, and bounded on the east by the land of Adam Rambo and Joe Collier, and on the north by the lands of A. Fort and J. R. Crawford, on the west by the river road, and on the south commencing on the east boundary, by lands of Ike McGill, Cassie Williams, and Caroline Hopkins, and thence the balance of the said south line by a road leading from what was then the mill of Chason & Reynolds to the Harvey landing on the Chattachoochee river, and did thus induce said Chason & Reynolds to purchase all of said timber on said land that measured 12 inches at the stump and 18 inches from the ground, for the sum of $500, said leased timber estimated to be about 350 acres, when in truth and in fact about 200 acres of said land and said timber was not the property of said Laster and Crawford, which fact was well known to the said Laster and Crawford at the time they made said false and fraudulent representations, and was not known by said Chason & Reynolds, and by said deceitful means and artful practices did cheat and defraud the said Chason & Reynolds of the sum of $400, the value of the timber that did not belong to the said Crawford and Laster, and contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof. And deponent aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charges and accuses the said J. R. D. Laster and J. R. Crawford with having committed the offense of cheating and swindling, for that on the day aforesaid, and in the county and state aforesaid, the said defendants did execute and deliver to the said Chason & Reynolds a lease to all the timber on the place known as the 'Harvey Place,' between the boundaries hereafter described, bounded on the east by the lands of Adam Rambo and Joe Collier, on the north by the lands of A. Fort and J. R. Crawford, on the west by the river road, on the south, commencing on the east boundary, by the lands of Ike McGill, Cassie Williams, and Caroline Hopkins, thence the balance of the said south line by road running from mill of Chason & Reynolds to the Harvey landing on the Chattachoochee river, the timber on said land to be cut down to 12 inches at the stump and 18 inches from the ground, the lease to remain operative three years from September 22, 1900; and when the description in said contract of land was being written by the prosecutor the said defendants, Laster and Crawford, allowed him (the prosecutor) to insert, 'Bounded on the west by lands of Adam Rambo and Joe Collier,' knowing at the time that this was not the proper boundary on the east, and by remaining silent and not giving the proper information did use deceitful means and artful practices, by reason of which said lease contained 350 acres of land, whereas the proper boundary was,...