Rylee v. State
| Decision Date | 15 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 21923.,21923. |
| Parties | RYLEE. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1932.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Virlyn B. Moore, Judge.
C. E. Rylee brings error.
Affirmed.
See, also, 162 S. E. 292.
Branch & Howard and Thos. B. Branch, Jr., all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., J. W. LeCraw, and E. A. Stephens, all of Atlanta, for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. "If any person shall designedly, by color of any counterfeit letter or writing, made in any other person's name, or fictitious name, obtain from any person money or other valuable thing, with intent to defraud any person, mercantile house, body corporate, or company of the same, he shall be punished by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for not less than two nor longer than seven years." Penal Code 1910, § 249.
In the instant case the indictment was drawn under the above-quoted Code section, and the check set forth therein was a "writing" within the meaning of the section, and the general demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled.
2. The indictment, after setting forth the acts of the defendant, charged that "all said acts of accused were done with intent to defraud the Atlanta and Lowry National Bank, Awtry & Lowndes Company, and Grant-Harris-Rippey Company, corporations." The indictment was not subject to the special demurrer attacking it, because it failed to allege "of what, when, or how this defendant intended to defraud the Atlanta and Lowry National Bank and Awtry & Lowndes Company." The charge in the indictment, that the acts of the defendant were done with the intent to defraud the three named corporations, together with the facts set forth in the indictment, was sufficient to enable the accused to prepare his defense and the jury to understand easily the nature of the offense charged.
3. The refusal to rule out the illegal testimony of a witness is not reversible error, where other testimony to the same effect has been introduced and is not covered by the motion to rule out. Smith v. State, 24 Ga. App. 654(1), 101 S. E. 764. This ruling disposes of special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial.
4. Special grounds 2 and 3 complain that the court, after ruling out (in the absence of the jury) certain evidence that had been introduced by the state, failed to subsequently instruct the jury that the evidence had been ruled out. The grounds, however, are not complete and understandable within themselves since the evidence ruled out is not set out in the grounds nor attached thereto as exhibits.
5. Special ground 4 assigns error upon the refusal...
To continue reading
Request your trial