Roberts v. State, (No. 20174.)

• Decision Date: 14 January 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 20174.)
• Citation: 151 S.E. 240,40 Ga.App. 732
• Parties: ROBERTS. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

40 Ga.App. 732

151 S.E. 240

ROBERTS.

v.STATE.

(No. 20174.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Jan. 14, 1930.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Miller County; M. J. Yeomans, Judge.

Clifford Roberts was convicted of adultery and fornication, and he brings error. Affirmed.

J. A. Drake, of Colquitt, for plaintiff in error.

B. T. Castellow, Sol. Gen., of Cuthbert, and Bond Almand, of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BROYLES, C. J. [1] 1. There was no material variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof, because the indictment charged seduction of "Ila" Weaver, whereas the evidence showed that the name of the female in question was "Ira" Weaver. The names Ila and Ira are idem sonans. Roland v. State, 127 Ga. 401 (1), 56 S. E. 412; Watkins v. State, 18 Ga. App. 500, 89 S. E. 624; Johnson v. State, 7 Ga. App. 551 (1) 67 S. E. 224. This ruling disposes of special grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 of the motion for a new trial.

2. One charged with seduction, and found guilty of adultery and fornication only, will not be heard to complain of alleged errors which could have been prejudicial to him only in the event of his having been convicted of the offense of seduction. Moulton v. State, 18 Ga. App. 285 (3), 89 S. E. 341. Under this ruling there is no merit in special grounds 6 and 8 of the motion for a new trial.

3. The remaining special ground (No. 7) of the motion for a new trial is not complete and understandable within itself.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

LUKE and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.