Dohme v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Citation | 68 Ga. 339 |
| Parties | Dohme. vs. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[This case was argued at the last term and the decision reserved.]
Criminal Law. Indictment. Verdict. Before Judge Clark. City Court of Atlanta. March Term, 1881.
An indictment was preferred against Dohme containing two counts. The first charged that "the said Robert Dohme, in the county aforesaid, on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord 1881, with force and arms did keep, have, use and maintain a gaming house, contrary to the laws, etc." The second count charged that the defendant knowingly rented said house for gaming purposes.
Defendant demurred to this indictment as insufficient to charge any offense and because no house was specified in which the offense was committed. The demurrer wasoverruled. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence introduced. The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
(1.) Because the court overruled the demurrer to the indictment.
(2.) Because the court charged the jury that if they found defendant guilty on either or both of the counts, to render a general verdict of guilty.
(3.) Because the court refused to charge, as requested by defendant, that if they found him guilty on one count and not guilty on the other count, to specify in their verdict on which count they found him guilty. The defendant requested the court thus to charge immediately on the retiring of the jury, and before they had time to consult on the case. [The judge in a note says that after the jury retired counsel requested him verbally to recall them and charge that they should specify on which count, if they found defendant guilty, and he declined.]
(4.) Because the verdict is contrary to evidence and law.
(5) Because the court admitted over defendant's objection the testimony of Crawford, Kimbro and Harrison as to any house being rented or used, there being no charge in the presentment authorizing the introduction of such testimony.
The court overruled the motion and defendant excepted.
Hopkins & Glenn, for plaintiff in error.
W. D. Ellis, solicitor city court, for the state.
The defendant was indicted for keeping a gaming house on two counts, one for keeping such a house, the other for renting rooms for the purpose of gaming.
He was found guilty, and on the denial of a new trial by the court excepted.
1. The demurrer was properly overruled. The description of the house,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noland
...Metc. 236; Booth v. Com., 5 Metc. 535; Com. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 1; Com. v. Holmes, 137 Mass. 248; State v. Smith, 18 S.C. 149; Dohme v. State, 68 Ga. 339; Hawker v. People, 75 N.Y. 487; Nelson State, 52 Wis. 534; State v. Williams, 9 Ired. 140; Ex parte Hibbs, 26 F. 421; State v. Tuller......
- State v. Miner
-
Simmons v. State, (No. 5001.)
...showed that he was guilty as charged in any one of the counts of the indictment, then he might lawfully be found guilty. In Dohme v. State, 68 Ga. 339, the indictment was in two counts. The first charged the defendant with a misdemeanor, to wit, maintaining a gaming house; the second charge......
-
Tooke v. State
...... phases which may appear in the proof at the trial, a general. verdict of guilty without any specification as to the count. on which it is rendered is sustainable and proper, if any one. of the counts be supported by sufficient proof. Dohme v. State, 68 Ga. 339. See, also, Stewart v. State, . 58 Ga. 577; Williams v. State, 107 Ga. 693, 33 S.E. 641. On the other hand, if by the indictment the state is. prosecuting, not merely for one offense, but charges several. different and distinct transactions, though of a kindred. ......