Mcdonald v. State

• Decision Date: 14 October 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 689.)
• Citation: 2 Ga. App. 633,58 S.E. 1067
• Parties: Mcdonald v. state.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

58 S.E. 1067

(2 Ga. App. 633)

Mcdonald

v.state.

(No. 689.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct 14, 1907.

1. Criminal Law—Evidence—Judicial Notice—Monetary Standard.

The courts will judicially recognize that the word "dollar" is the money unit of the United States of the value of 100 cents, and will also recognize the different kinds and denominations of the currency issued by the United States.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 714.]

2. Same—"Greenback."

The courts judicially know that the term "greenback" is the popular name used to designate a certain species of the currency of the United States.

3. Larceny—Money—Description.

The description of the property stolen in an accusation for larceny as "ninety dollars of the lawful currency of the United States of America" is sufficiently proved by evidence that the money was in $10 and $20 bills; that one of the bills had the word "gold" on it, and the rest of the money was "greenback."

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 32, Larceny, § 155.]

4. Same—Evidence.

The evidence required the judgment rendered, and there was no error of law. (Syllabus by the Court.)

5. Words and Phrases—"Dollar."

The word "dollar" is used to signify the money unit of the United States of the value of 100 cents. It imparts to the common understanding the meaning of a thing of value.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2160-2164.]

6. Same—"Greenback."

The term "greenback" is a popular name applied to all United States treasury notes.

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3164-3165.]

Error from Superior Court, Baldwin County; H. G. Lewis, Judge.

Joe McDonald was convicted of larceny, and from an order vacating a writ of certiorari he brings error. Affirmed.

Kenan Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

Jos. e. Pottle, Sol. Gen., and Carl Vinson, for the State.

HILL, C. J. Plaintiff in error was tried by the judge of the county court of Baldwin county without a jury, on an accusation charging him with the offense of simple larceny. He was adjudged guilty, and thereupon petitioned for a writ of certiorari. His petition was sanctioned, and the writ granted. On the hearing of the certiorari by the judge of the superior court of said county, the same was overruled, and to this judgment error is assigned.

There is but a single question made by the record for the decision of this court. Was the property alleged to have been stolen sufficiently proved as described in the accui sation? The accusation describes the property feloniously taken and carried away as "ninety dollars of lawful currency of the United States of America of the personal goods of one Jordan Lord of the value of ninety dollars." The evidence pertinent to said allegation and descriptive of the property stolen was as follows: The prosecutor testified "this money (referring to the stolen money), was in $10 and $20 bills. I counted it, and there was $90. This money was given me in payment of a check on the Merchants' & Farmers' Bank at Pelham at said bank. This money was in my pocketbook, a black leather book with Merchants' & Farmers' Bank of Milledgeville stamped on it I don't know just what kind of money was in the book. It was paper bills, tens and twenties, such as I have used every tw.o weeks for the last few years and passed as money. I never read any of the bills except the figures on them showing the amount of these bills. I do not know whether they were issued by the United States government or the Bank of England, or any other bank. All I can say about that is that It was the kind of money that 1 had gotten from the bank and used and other people have used. It was worth $90." Another witness described the money as follows: "I counted the money twice. There was $90 in all, three $20 bills and three $10 bills. One of thebills had 'gold' on it. Tbe rest of it was greenback."

It is well settled that tbe accusation need not have alleged that the property or money stolen was lawful currency of the United States, yet, if alleged, the description must be proved as laid. Watson v. State, 64 Ga. 61; Fulford v. State, 50 Ga. 591. "If a necessary allegation is made unnecessarily minute in description, the proof must satisfy the description as well as main fact, since the one is essential to the identity of the otber." 1 Bishop, New Criminal Procedure, § 484; Clark, Crim. Procedure, 182. In our opinion, the proof sustained the allegation as laid in the accusation. In other words, we think that the evidence sufficiently shows that the property alleged to have been stolen was lawful currency of the United States of America.

The prosecutor described the property stolen as $90 in money in $10 and $20 bills, such as he had used every two weeks for three years and passed as money; the same kind of money that he had gotten from banks and used and other people had used. The courts will judicially recognize that the word "dollar" is the money unit of the United States of the value of 100 cents. The word "dollar" imparts to the common understanding the meaning of a thing of value, and when the charge is that the defendant stole $90 in lawful currency of the United States, it means by common understanding that that amount of money in coin, banknotes, or notes issued by the government of the United States, was stolen by him. Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. 80, 22 South. 564. The courts also will judicially recognize that among the...