Gibbs v. State

• Docket Number: 2,398.
• Decision Date: 25 July 1910
• Citation: 68 S.E. 742,8 Ga.App. 107
• Parties: GIBBS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

68 S.E. 742

8 Ga.App. 107

GIBBS v. STATE.

No. 2,398.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

July 25, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

A railroad car may be treated as a "dwelling house," and may be the subject of burglary, when it is used exclusively for the purposes of habitation.

The defendant's guilt of the crime of burglary being wholly dependent upon the inference arising from the possession of goods stolen at the time of the burglary, and this possession being shown by the uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence to be lawful and consistent with the defendant's innocence of burglary, the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted. Hampton v. State, 6 Ga.App. 778, 65 S.E. 816.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; Moses Wright, Judge.

Henry Gibbs was convicted of burglary, and he brings error. Reversed.

M. B Eubanks and W. B. Mebane, for plaintiff in error.

John W Bale, Sol. Gen., for the State.

RUSSELL J.

The defendant in the court below was convicted of the offense of burglary. He moved for a new trial upon general grounds, and now excepts to the overruling of his motion.

Evidence on the part of the state showed that the prosecutor occupied a railroad car, which had been placed at a point called Atlanta Junction, as a dwelling house. "He lived, ate and slept in this car." The car was placed there for the prosecutor and other section hands to live in. The car was entered on May 21st through one of the windows, and a certain suit case, some shoes, a coat, and pants were taken therefrom while the prosecutor was absent at his work. The pants were speckled or spotted color, the coat was black with stripes in it, and the shoes were low-quartered men's shoes, No. 9. About two weeks after these goods were taken, the defendant came up to the car at Atlanta Junction, in the presence of the prosecutor and several other men, wearing the pants and shoes which had been stolen, and talked "to the boys." The prosecutor "fooled him down to Mr Christopher's house," and he was arrested. This is substantially the state's case as shown by the testimony. A witness, who was not sought to be impeached by proof of general bad character or by contradictory statements, and whose testimony was not contradicted by any evidence in the case, testified that on the 7th day of June (following the burglary) she saw one Peter Baker sell the defendant a pair of shoes and pants similar to those that were lost for 60 cents. The other persons mentioned by this witness as being present at the time of the transaction were not introduced by the defendant; but there was no conflict between this testimony...