Vaughn v. State

• Decision Date: 07 October 1915
• Docket Number: 6607.
• Citation: 86 S.E. 461,17 Ga.App. 268
• Parties: VAUGHN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

86 S.E. 461

17 Ga.App. 268

VAUGHN v. STATE.

No. 6607.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

October 7, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

Where in an indictment for embezzlement, the name of the organization of which the accused was financial secretary imports a corporation, the presumption is that it is a corporation; and, in the absence of affirmative proof by the accused that no such corporation existed, and where there is no allegation in the indictment that it was a corporation, it is not necessary for the state to prove the fact of such incorporation. And after a final judgment has been rendered such judgment is not void, nor voidable, for the mere want of such proof. Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212, 221, 41 S.E. 709; St. Cecilia's Academy v. Hardin, 78 Ga. 39, 3 S.E. 305, Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Dalton Marble Works, 122 Ga. 774, 776, 50 S.E. 978.

It was not error for the court to allow a member of the jury, at the request of the solicitor general, to write down on a paper certain calculations furnished by the solicitor general during his argument. As held by the Supreme Court in Lilly v. Griffin, 71 Ga. 535 (1): "The jury may take notes of calculations submitted by either plaintiff or defendant, or of what is said or claimed by counsel for either side in argument. The jury cannot be required to do this, but may do so, if it be not attended with delay or undue consumption of time." And in Tift v Towns, 63 Ga. 238 (4), the Supreme Court said: "If it involves no delay or undue consumption of time, one or more of the jurors may, during the argument of counsel, make notes of what is said or what is claimed; and that this is done at the request of counsel, and whilst he reads from calculations which he has prepared, will make no difference. The counsel of each party is equally free to make such a request, and the members of the jury are all free to decline."

The court did not err in allowing in evidence a copy of a written demand, served upon the accused, for the return of the money which it was claimed he had embezzled,

The remaining assignments of error are without merit. The charge of the court was full, fair, and without error.

The evidence supported the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Morgan County; J. B. Park, Judge.

Jim Vaughn was convicted of embezzlement, and brings error. Affirmed.

M. C. Few, of Madison, for plaintiff in...