Goode v. State

• Decision Date: 06 November 1883
• Citation: 70 Ga. 752
• Parties: GOODE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

70 Ga. 752

GOODE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

November 6, 1883

September Term, 1883.

Where a defendant was tried and acquitted under an indictment charging him with larceny from the house and alleging the ownership of the house and of the goods stolen to be in the prosecutor, and was subsequently arraigned under another indictment for larceny from the house, alleging a different ownership of the house, and of the goods stolen, and a different day on which the offence was committed, a plea of autre fois acquit, setting out fully the first indictment and the proceedings had thereunder, and averring that the transactions embraced in both indictments were one and the same, was good and should not have been stricken on demurrer.

( a. ) The facts in this case are the reverse of those in 63 Ga. 307.

( b. ) The first indictment does not appear to have been defective. The place of the larceny was stated with sufficient certainty to enable the jury easily to understand with the aid of proof, the house indicated; and, though the goods alleged to belong to the prosecutor in fact belonged to a firm of which he was a member, he had a right to their custody. Even if the indictment did not fully and accurately describe these circumstances, it would not prevent the defendant from pleading former acquittal.

Criminal Law. Former Acquittal. Verdict. Before Judge BRANHAM. Henry Superior Court. April Term, 1883.

Richard Goode was indicted for larceny from the house, and was acquitted. The body of the indictment was as follows:

" The grand jurors *** charge and accuse Richard Goode of the county and state aforesaid, of the offence of larceny from the house; for that the said Richard Goode, on the first day of September, in the year 1880, in the county aforesaid did then and there, with force and arms, the house of one R T. Harper, there situated, did enter in the daytime, and after having entered, two hams of bacon of the value of ten dollars, one hundred and ten dollars of United States treasury notes, or national bank bills, of the denomination of twenty, ten, five, two and one dollar bills, of the value of one hundred and ten dollars, ten dollars in silver coin in dollars, half dollars, quarters and ten cents, of the personal goods of the said R. T. Harper, in said store-house being then and there found, did wrongfully and fraudulently take and carry away, with the intent then and there to steal the same, contrary" etc.

He was then reindicted, the second indictment charging that on the first day of October, 1880, defendant committed the offence of larceny from the house. The ownership of the house was alleged to be in Mrs. M. E. Harper, and that of the goods stolen to be in Harper & Turner, a firm composed of R. T. Harper and G. F. Turner doing business in the house. Defendant pleaded, autre fois acquit, alleging that the two indictments were based on the same transaction, and were, in fact two indictments for the same crime. On demurrer, the plea was stricken, and defendant excepted.

J. L. TYE; S. C. MCDANIEL; W. H. HULSEY, for plaintiff in error.

E. WOMACK, solicitor general, for the state.

HALL Justice.

Richard Goode was indicted, tried and acquitted upon an indictment charging him with larceny from the house. The larceny was charged to have been committed in a house belonging to R. T. Harper, the prosecutor, and the goods stolen were charged to be his property.

Upon his acquittal, he was held and another bill of indictment was preferred and found, charging him with the same offence, in stealing in a house belonging to M. E. Harper, the goods jointly owned by R. T. Harper & Turner. A different day was alleged in this indictment from that laid in the first on which the theft was committed. When the defendant in this last indictment was arraigned and called upon to answer to it, he pleaded autre fois acquit, setting out in his plea the first indictment and the proceedings had thereon in hæ c verba, and averring...