Gravitt v. State, (No. 5937.)

• Decision Date: 20 February 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 5937.)
• Citation: 165 Ga. 779,142 S.E. 100
• Parties: GRAVITT. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

165 Ga. 779

142 S.E. 100

GRAVITT.

v.STATE.

(No. 5937.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 20, 1928.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Certiorari from Court of Appeals.

E. L. Gravitt was convicted of attempting to commit larceny. Conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (36 Ga. App. 301, 136 S. E. 829), and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Joe Hill Smith, Vester M. Ownby, and W. H. Terrell, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., John H. Hudson, and J. W. Le Craw, all of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ATKINSON, J. 1. "When a judgment has been rendered, either party may move in arrest thereof, or to set it aside for any defect not amendable which appears on the face of the record or pleadings." Civil Code 1910, § 5957. "A motion in arrest of judgment * * * differs from a motion to set aside a judgment, in this: The motion in arrest of judgment must be made during the term at which such judgment was obtained, while a motion to set it aside may be made at any time within the statute of limitations." Civil Code 1910, § 5958.

2. In Davis v. State, 40 Ga. 229, it was stated:

"Defendants were indicted for the offense of simple larceny, and charged with having wrongfully and fraudulently taken and carried away a certain 'white hog, ' without alleging the hog to have been of any value. Held, that by the common law, at the time of our statute adopting the same, the value of the property, in an indictment for simple larceny, was required to bealleged and proved on the trial, and that that rule of the common law is still of force in this state, and a failure to allege the value of the property, alleged to have been sto?en, in the indictment, is a good ground for arresting the judgment after verdict."

This case under consideration differs from the Davis Case, in that the motion was to set aside a judgment, as distinguished from a motion in arrest of judgment, and was not filed during the term at which the judgment complained of was rendered.

3. In McDonald v. State, 126 Ga. 530, 55 S. E. 235, it was said:

"A motion to set aside the judgment is not the appropriate remedy in a criminal case if the indictment is void. The judgment may be arrested upon motion made during the term at which the verdict is rendered, or the prisoner may be discharged upon a writ of habeas corpus at any time thereafter, if no question as to the validity of the indictment was adjudicated at the trial. Griffin v. Eaves, 114 Ga. 65 . See, also, ...