Harrison v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
| Citation | 74 Ga. 801 |
| Parties | Harrison. vs. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
1. Where a defendant was indicted for burglary, and convicted of that offense, charges and refusals to charge in respect to the minor offense of larceny from the house, even if erroneous, would not authorize a new trial.
2. Where a family, occupying a dwelling house, were absent at the time it was broken open and entered, and property stolen therefrom, but with the intention of returning thereto, the offense was burglary from a dwelling-house. Roscoe Cr. Ev, 358; 2 Whar. Cr. Law, 1575, and citations.
3. Where a family, who occupied a dwelling-house, were absent, but with an intention of returning, and the house was rented for sometime after they left, but some of the effects of the family were left in it and stored in some of the rooms, and the tenant gaveup possession by leaving the house before the burglary, and the goods and chattels left by the family of the owner were taken away by the burglar, the crime was burglary of the dwelling-house of the head of the family.
(a.) If a husband and wife lived together in a house, it was his dwelling-house as well as hers, although the title may have been in her; and it makes no difference that in her testimony the wife called it her house, while her son called it the dwelling-house of his father.
4. Where a burglary was committed, and some of the missing property which had been left in the house was identified and found in the possession of the defendant shortly thereafter, and not satisfactorily accounted for, this was sufficient evidence of his guilt; and the jury having found him guilty, and the presiding judge being satisfied, this court will not interfere.
Judgment affirmed.
April 2, 1885.
[Harrison was indicted for the burglary of the dwelling-house of B. D. Holcombe. The evidence showed, in brief, as follows: Holcombe and his family lived in the house. In September, 1883, they went to Florida, but intended to return. They packed their goods in two rooms, which they locked, and left the balance of the house in the hands of a real estate agent to rent. A tenant took the house for a year, but subsequently moved out, leaving it vacant for a time. It was broken open, and certain property taken from it at some time near June 1, 1884, and when Holcombe's wife returned, she found a number of things gone. The defendant was arrested on June 2, and the stolen property was found in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haynes v. State
...C. L. 426, 427; 2 East P. C. 496; Randy v. State, 46 Tex. Ct. R. 406, 80 S.W. 526; State v. Mason, 74 Ohio St. 65, 77 N.E. 283; Harrison v. State, 74 Ga. 801; State Meerchouse, 34 Mo. 344, 86 Am. Dec. 109; Wharton's Criminal Law, sec. 993; Bishop's Statutory Crimes (3 Ed.), sec. 278; 6 Cyc.......
-
Horton v. State, 26943
...Scott v. State, 122 Ga. 138, 50 S.E. 49; Lewis v. State, 120 Ga. 508, 48 S.E. 227; Rutland v. State, 90 Ga. 102, 15 S.E. 813; Harrison v. State, 74 Ga. 801; Taylor v. State, 118 Ga.App. 605, 164 S.E.2d 876; Mathews v. State, 103 Ga.App. 743, 120 S.E.2d 359; Walden v. State, 83 Ga.App. 231, ......
-
Smith v. State
...427; 2 East's P. C. 496; Handy v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 406, 80 S.W. 526; State v. Mason et al., 74 Ohio St. 65, 77 N.E. 283; Harrison v. State, 74 Ga. 801; State v. Meerchouse, 34 Mo. 344, 86 Am. Dec. From the evidence in this case it appears that the house alleged to have been broken and ......
-
Hart v. Hirsch
...74 Ga. 799Hart. vs. Hirsch.Supreme Court of the State of GeorgiaFEBRUARY TERM, 1885.There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the jury; no material errors were committed by the court in ... ...