Nickles v. State

• Decision Date: 13 June 1952
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 34114,34114,2
• Citation: Nickles v. State, 71 S.E.2d 578, 86 Ga.App. 290 (Ga. App. 1952)
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: NICKLES v. STATE

Page 578

71 S.E.2d 578

86 Ga.App. 290

NICKLES v.STATE.

No. 34114.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

June 13, 1952.

The defendant, T. M. Nickles, was charged in a special presentment with larceny after trust, in that he'in the county of Richmond and State of Georgia, on the 26th day of October, 1950, with force and arms, having been intrusted by the Board of Education of Richmond County, and the Augusta Vocational School, with two thousand dollars in money, of the value of $2000 and the property of the said Board of Education of Richmond County, and the Augusta Vocational School, for the purpose of applying the same for the use and benefit of the said Board of Education, and the Augusta Vocational School, after having been so intrusted, did wrongfully, fraudulently and feloniously convert the said two thousand dollars in money, of the value of $2000, to his own use, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof,' to which he interposed the following demurrers: '1.That said presentment fails to allege whether the Augusta Vocational School is a corporation or some other entity and fails to allege whether the Augusta Vocational School is an entity at all and the words 'Augusta Vocational School' do not import a corporation or other entity.2.That the ownership of the Augusta Vocational School is not alleged and no information is given as to who owns or operates the Augusta Vocational School and said information is necessary in order for this defendant to properly defend himself and [against?] the charges purportedly contained in said special presentment.'

The trial court overruled these demurrers and the defendant excepted.

Harris, Chance & McCracken, Henry T. Chance, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

George Hains, Sol.Gen., E. D. Fulcher, Augusta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

CARLISLE, Judge.

1.Larceny after trust is a species of larceny and in prosecutions for the former offense, as in those for the latter, it is necessary to allege ownership of the property in a person, corporation, or other legal entity capable of owning property, in order to enable the accused to know exactly what charge he will be called upon at the trial to meet, and to enable him, if such should be the case, to plead a former acquittal or conviction.Scarboro v. State, 207 Ga. 449(2), 62 S.E.2d 168;Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212, 219(7), 41 S.E. 709;McKee v. State, 200 Ga. 563, 37 S.E.2d 700.

2.If the property alleged to have been stolen is that of an individual, the name of the individual, if known, should be stated; if it is the property of a partnership, or other quasi artificial person, the names of the persons composing the partnership, or quasi artificial person, should be given; if it is the property of a corporation, the name of the corporation should be given, and the fact that it is a corporation stated, unless the name itself imports a corporation.Mattox v. State, supra.

3.'Augusta Vocational School' is not the name of an individual, does not...