Daniels v. The State Of Ga.

• Citation: 78 Ga. 98
• Parties: Daniels . vs. The State of Georgia.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1886
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

78 Ga. 98

Daniels . vs. The State of Georgia.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1886.

Criminal Law. Burglary. Evidence. Confessions. Words and Phrases. Before Judge Richard H. Clark. Fulton Superior Court. September Term, 1885.

George Daniels was indicted for burglary. It was charged that he had broken and entered the building of the Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, where valuable goods were stored, with intent to steal, and after so breaking and entering, did steal and carry away $2.60 worth of U. S. postage stamps.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and further, that if he was guilty of said offence, he had been convicted thereof in the city court of the city of Atlanta, on the—— day of——, 1885, under the charge of larceny from the house.

It is unnecessary to set out the evidence in detail. The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial on the following among other grounds:

(1) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.

(2) Because the court erred in stating, in the presence of the jury, whilst overruling the motion of defendant's counsel to exclude the confessions of defendant, that "the confessions, too, where you establish the corpus delicti, that is, prove that a crime has been committed, then any confession of the crime, the defendant can be convicted on his confessions. But one cannot be convicted on his confessions alone, if the confessions are illegally obtained. But there are facts that come in as testimony that are consistent with that confession; then the jury may judge of whether the confession is true or not. They have introduced some facts in connection with the confession; therefore the confession will remain in, to be judged of by the jury."

(3) Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "Going further, gentlemen, and charging you upon the evidence in this case, if you believe from the evidence that defendant did commit a larceny about the same time in the same property of the W. & A. R. R. Co., and that he has been convicted of that, and that the subject of the larceny is the same as the subject of this burglary, I mean the kind of property; and then, if you believe from the evidence also that he was selling property of the samesort of these other two properties;—I say, if these facts are in evidence before you, and they raise in your minds the inference of guilt, then you may, if you choose, apply his confession of them to this case; and if you believe this burglary was done, and if you believe that beyond a reasonable doubt, you may conclude that he committed this offence, as well as having committed the other offences." [See the statement of facts in the third division of the decision in reference to this ground.]

The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

F. R. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

C. D. Hill, solicitor-general; James Mayson; W. P. Hill, for the State.

Hall, Justice.

1. The indictment charges the defendant with breaking and entering the depot building of the Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, where valuable goods were contained, with intent to steal, etc. The proof showed that the outer door was left open, but that after getting into the building, which had numerous apartments, the doors to each of these, in which the postage stamps belonging to the company were deposited, were broken and entered and they were stolen and carried away by the defendant. It is now insisted that neither the charge in the indictment nor the facts in proof made out the offence of burglary against the defendant; that in order to fix legal guilt upon him, it should have been alleged and proved that he effected his entrance by breaking the door through which he got into the house, and not by showing that, after entering it, he broke either of the doors of the departments in it, where the valuables in question were found. Such, however, is not our apprehension of the law. It is well-settled, by a number of cases, that where a party is indicted for breaking and entering an out-house within the curti-lage or protection of a mansion or dwelling, the burglary should be laid as having been done in the dwelling-house. 1 Wharton\'s Cr. L. §S15, and citations. If this be true as to an out-house within the protection of the mansion or dwelling-house, a fortiori would it be so as to an apartment in the house, a party\'s place of business in which his goods, wares, etc. were stored or contained, and which was broken and entered with an intent to commit a larceny upon the articles of value therein contained. This indictment does not allege in terms that the depot was the place of business of the railroad company, but no specific objection was taken to it on this account, and had there been one, we are not prepared to hold that it was tenable, as the offence, though not charged in the terms and language of the code, is so plainly set...