Nutzel v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 60 Ga. 265 |
| Parties | Nutzel et al. v. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[This case was argued at the last term and decision reserved.]
Criminal law. Charge of court. New trial. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. May Term, 1877.
Reported in the opinion.
L. H. deMontmollin; P. M. & R. W. Russeee; Thomas J. Sheftall, for plaintiff in error.
A. B. Smith, solicitor general, for the state.
*Jackson, Judge.
These defendants, one a white man and the other a black man, were indicted and tried for simple larceny in stealing certain shoes out of a steamer lying in the Savannah river, under section 4408 of the Code. They were found guilty, and made a motion for a new trial on various grounds therein alleged; it was overruled on all and they excepted.
The facts are that they were caught in the act of breaking open a box of shoes in the hold of the vessel where they had no business. One pair was found in Nutzel's room and several on the person, under the shirt of Dunham, being ladies' gaiters. When caught in the act Nutzel said he had told Dunham, thenegro, to break open the box, and begged the person who detected them not to tell it.
The evidence of the larceny is complete.
1. The motion for a new trial is based on these grounds: First, because the court charged that in making out the offense it was not necessary to prove that the goods were actually taken and carried away from the vessel. This charge was not erroneous. The offense is simple larceny, and the Code, section 4408, defines this sort of larceny. "Plundering or stealing any article of value from a vessel in distress, or from a wreck, or any other vessel, boat or water-craft within the jurisdictional limits of this state, is simple larceny, " declares that section. So that the question was, did these employees of the steamer, for employees they were, plunder or steal from this ship. The proof is, that they broke a box open and took out of it the shoes, hiding them. We think that the theft was complete without taking the goods out of the vessel. The crime is simple larceny, and the asportation is complete when they took the shoes out of the box and hid them.
The next ground is to the same effect and is ruled above.
2. The next is that the court charged, "you can look to the evidence and see if the colored man was forced to open the box by the white man, Nutzel, or if he acted freely and willingly and in full accord with the white man, and be really *guilty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...court did not err in refusing the request, and this is true even assuming that the charge would otherwise have been applicable. Nutzel v. State, 60 Ga. 265 (3); Alexander v. State, 118 Ga. 26 (3), 44 S. E. 851. RUSSELL, C. J., and HUTCHESON, J., dissent. 4. The defense allowed by the Penal ......
-
Jones v. State
...an opinion on the facts, is fairly liable to such exception, the whole charge, written and in the record, may be considered." Nutzel v. State, 60 Ga. 265 (1). Under this and the facts of the instant case, the single ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows no cause for a ......
-
Jones v. State, (No. 18586.)
...an opinion on thefacts, is fairly liable to such exception, the whole charge, written and in the record, may be considered." Nutzel v. State, 60 Ga. 265 (1). Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, the single ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows no cause ......