Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 10 May 1904 |
| Citation | 47 S.E. 519,120 Ga. 142 |
| Parties | HALL . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
LARCENY OF. BALED COTTON—INDICTMENT—ISSUES AND PROOF—ALLEGATION AS TO LOCALITY—STATUTE—INSTRUCTIONS—NECESSITY.
1. In criminal law an unnecessarily minute description of a necessary fact must be proved as charged, but an unnecessary description of an unnecessary fact need not be proved.
¶ 1. See Indictment and Information, vol. 27, Cent. Dig. § 531.
2. No locality except venue need be charged in prosecutions under Pen. Code 1895, § 186, which was intended to make the stealing of baled cotton a felony, regardless of value or of the place where the cotton was stored.
3. In view of the defendant's statement and some of the evidence offered in his behalf, it was error to refuse the written request to charge that, if he did not steal but bought the cotton from one who had stolen it, he could not be convicted under an indictment for stealing baled cotton.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Appling County; P. E. Seabrook, Judge.
P. F. Hall was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed.
Hall, with two others, was indicted for stealing a bale of cotton from "under the ginhouse of Johnson, the place where the same had been stored, the said bale of cotton having been placed and located near the press under said ginhouse." There was also a count for receiving stolen goods, which, however, was stricken on demurrer. There was ample evidence that the cotton had been taken from under the ginhouse of Johnson, though there was no proof that it had been taken from near the press. Possession of the property was traced directly to the defendant. In his statement he claimed that he had bought it from one Thomas, and there was some evidence to the same effect from witnesses for the defense. There was a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and to evidence, that there was no proof of the descriptive averment that the bale had been placed near the press, and because the court refused a written request to charge, "If you should find that another person stole the cotton, and afterwards the defendant bought or received it, then you would not be authorized to find the defendant guilty, but should acquit him."
W. W. Bennett and E. D. Graham, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Bennett, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The intent of Pen. Code 1895, § 186, was to make the stealing of baled cotton a felony, regardless of its value, or of whether it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flanders v. State
...certain as to * * * place.' Wingard v. State, 13 Ga. 396(3). See, also, Hall v. State, 8 Ga.App. 747(2), 70 S.E. 211; Hall v. State, 120 Ga. 142, 47 S.E. 519; Moseley v. State, 74 Ga. 404; Conley v. State, 8o Ga. 496, 10 S.E. 123.' Pines v. State, 15 Ga.App. 348(1), 83 S.E. 198. See also Hi......
-
Kennedy v. State, 63884
...indictment. See DePalma v. State, 225 Ga. 465, 469(3), 169 S.E.2d 801; Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800, 802(1), 183 S.E.2d 357; Hall v. State, 120 Ga. 142, 47 S.E. 519; Cobb v. State, 244 Ga. 344, 352-353(15), 260 S.E.2d 60. Accord, McHugh v. State, 136 Ga.App. 57, 220 S.E.2d 69; Ingram v. State......
-
Sparks v. State, 23737.
...of a necessary fact must be proved as charged, but an unnecessary description of an unnecessary fact need not be proved." Hall v. State, 120 Ga. 142, 47 S. E. 519. Unquestionably the location of the scheme or device as a descriptive averment was an unnecessary element in the crime with whic......
- State v. Pirkey