Sharp v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1855 |
| Docket Number | No. 54.,54. |
| Citation | 17 Ga. 290 |
| Parties | Matthew Sharp, plaintiff in error. vs. THE State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment, in Macon Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, September Term, 1854.
Matthew Sharp was put upon his trial, under an indictment charging him with the offence of "retailing without license." Counsel for defendant moved to quash, on the ground that it should have charged him with a "misdemeanor." The Court overruled the motion, and this is the first error assigned.
The Solicitor General closed his case without proving that defendant had no license. The Court charged the Jury, that it was not incumbent on the State to prove the fact that defendant had no license. The onus was on him to show that he had license. This charge is the second error assigned.
Blandford & Crawford; Oliver & Clements, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. DeGraffenrEid and Whittle, for defendant in error.
By the Court.—Benning, J., delivering the opinion.
The indictment stated the offence in the terms and language of the Code, or so plainly that the nature of the offence might be easily understood by the Jury; and that is all that the law requires. (The Code, Cobb's Dig. 818, 833.)
It is a general principle of law, that the party that alleges the affirmative of a proposition, especially if the proposition concern something which must be peculiarly within his knowledge, must prove the proposition.
The case of one who, by pleading not guilty to a charge of retailing without license, alleges that he retailed with license, is not an exception to the general rule.
In accordance with this principle was the charge of the Court. That charge was therefore right.
So there should be a general affirmance.
BURDEN OF PROOF. "On the trial of a keeper of a billiard table, charged with permitting a minor to play billiards at his table, without the consent of the parent or guardian of the minor, the burden of proving that the parent or guardian did not consent, is upon the State." * * * * ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...easily made than proof of the negative can be by the prosecution. Farrall v. State, 32 Ala. 557; Williams v. State, 35 Ark. 430; Sharp v. State, 17 Ga. 290; Conyers v. State, 50 Ga. 103, 15 Am. Rep. 686; Noecker v. People, 91 Ill. 468; Gunnarssohn v. Sterling, 92 Ill. 569; Flora v. Lee, 5 I......
-
Stoner v. State
...of the statute but not in the enacting clause, is upon the defendant. Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435; Hester v. State, 17 Ga. 130; Sharp v. State, 17 Ga. 290; Jordan v. State, 22 Ga. 545; Hicks v. State, 108 Ga. 749, 32 S. E. 665; Kitchens v. State, 116 Ga. 847, 43 S. E. 256; Rex v. Pemberton,......
-
Stoner v. State
... ... the burden of proving himself to be within exceptions raised ... by construction or implication, or stated in the body of the ... statute but not in the enacting clause, is upon the ... defendant. Elkins v. State, 13 Ga. 435; Hester ... v. State, 17 Ga. 130; Sharp v. State, 17 Ga ... 290; Jordan v. State, 22 Ga. 545; Hicks v ... State, 108 Ga. 749, 32 S.E. 665; Kitchens v ... State, 116 Ga. 847, 43 S.E. 256; Rex v. Pemberton, 2 ... Burr. 1036; Anderson v. State, 2 Ga.App. 20, 58 ... S.E. 401, and cit ... Rehearing ... --------- ... ...
-
Blocker v. State
...the act which would otherwise be lawful, proof of the act puts the burden upon the defendant to show his excuse or legal authority. Sharp v. State, 17 Ga. 290; Amos v. State, 34 Ga. 531; Conyers v. State, 50 Ga. 103, 15 Am. Rep. 686; Hines v. State, 93 Ga. 187, 18 S. E. 558; Reich v. State,......