McCrary v. State

• Decision Date: 08 July 1895
• Citation: 23 S.E. 409,96 Ga. 348
• Parties: McCRARY v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

23 S.E. 409

96 Ga. 348

McCRARY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 8, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

Where an indictment for burglary alleged that the accused broke and entered a storehouse with the intent to commit the larceny of a "five-gallon keg of whisky, of the value of fifteen dollars, " and there was ample evidence to show the breaking and entry by the accused and the actual larcency by him from that house of a keg of whisky containing five gallons, and also that the same was of some value, the case was sufficiently made out, with out further proof as to value.

Error from superior court, Hall county; J. J. Kimsey, Judge.

Gus McCrary was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Affirmed.

H. H. Dean, for plaintiff in error.

Howard Thompson, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN, J.

The accused was indicted for burglary, the charge being that he broke and entered the storehouse of the prosecutor with intent to commit the larceny of a "five gallon keg of Whisky, of the value of fifteen dollars." After conviction, he moved for a new trial, on the general ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence. There was ample evidence of the breaking and entering by the accused, and of the actual larcency by him from that house of a keg of whisky containing five gallons, and in these respects the case of the state was sufficiently proved. The main contention insisted upon in this court was that the state failed to prove that the whisky had any value whatever. Among other things, the prosecutor testified: "I lately lost something of value from my place of business. I lost a keg of whisky. It contained five gallons." Other evidence warranted a finding that the keg of whisky thus lost by the prosecutor was, shortly after the breaking, found in the possession of the accused; and the conclusion that he broke and entered the storehouse with the intent to steal this identical whisky is therefore well supported. The prosecutor swore to the loss of this keg of whisky, and that it was "something of value." It was not, of course, essential to prove its exact value, and it can hardly be doubted that the above-recited evidence was enough to show it had some value. Accordingly, we hold, without serious difficulty, that the state's case was sufficiently made out, without additional proof upon the question of value. Judgment affirmed.