Wall v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 75 Ga. 474 |
| Parties | Wall. vs. The State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law. Larceny. Master and Servant. Accomplice. Bailments. Witness. Before Judge Roney. Columbia Superior Court. March Term, 1885.
Reported in the decision.
Thos. E. Watson; E. T. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
Boykin Wright, solicitor general, by brief, for the state.
The defendant was indicted for larceny from the house, and was charged with stealing therefrom a bale of cotton, alleged in the indictment to be worth fifty dollars. On the trial, it was proved that the cotton was sold for thirty-two dollars, and, under the charge of the court, the defendant was found guilty of a misdemeanor instead of a felony; that is to say, the jury found the cotton stolen to be worth less than fifty dollars, which fact made the larceny a misdemeanor. The proof showed that the defendant was employed by the owners of the gin-house from which the cotton was stolen, as a servant for wages, and among other duties, he was to aid in ginning cotton brought there by his master\'s customers; that he received and weighed it and put it in the gin-house; that, having to "fire" the engine by which the gin was run, early in the morning, he generally carried the keys to the house; at night he reported to the owner, who entered on his books the weights, receipts and deliveries of cotton during the day. More than two years had elapsed from the discovery of the theft before the indictment was preferred and found. It was further insisted, that the conviction was had upon the unsupported testimony of accomplices. A motion was made for a new trial, which was overruled, upon the grounds certified by the judge to be true, which made the following questions:
(1.) That the defendant had the possession of the cotton, and that his employer had not, and hence, if he was guilty of any offense, it was larceny after a trust, or embezzlement, and not larceny from the house.
(2.) That although the bill of indictment charged him with a felony, yet the evidence showed, if it established any crime at all, that he was guilty of a misdemeanor, and that the misdemeanor was barred by the statute of limitations; and that the judge erred in refusing so to charge.
(3.) That there was error in instructing the jury, that the evidence of accomplices in cases of misdemeanor did not require corroboration, in order to justify the jury in convicting on it.
1. If the cotton stolen had never been in the possession of the prosecutor, or if the defendant had bona fide acquired possession of it as a bailee, unless there had been a breaking of bulk or some other rupture of the conditionof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. King
...offense included therein of which the accused might be found guilty. Reynolds v. State, 1 Ga. 222; Clark v. State, 12 Ga. 350; Wall v. State, 75 Ga. 474 * * *'. See Sikes v. State, 20 Ga.App. 80, 92 S.E. The majority seems to have founded its conclusion, in part, on a fear that sometime, so......
-
Heatherly v. State
...conviction in such case, the factfinder would not have to find that the testimony of an accomplice was corroborated. In Wall v. State , 75 Ga. 474 (3) (1885), the defendant was indicted for larceny of an amount greater than fifty dollars, which under the law at the time would have subjected......
-
Atl. Coast Line R. Co v. Baker
...must look to his employer for compensation for the work done or for the value of his services. Compare Civ. Code 1895, § 2919; Wall v. State, 75 Ga. 474; Thornton v. McDonald, 108 Ga. 3, 33 S. E. 680; Jordan v. Jones, 110 Ga. 47, 35 S. E. 151. This conclusion necessitating a reversal, it is......