Watson v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1879 |
| Citation | 64 Ga. 61 |
| Parties | Watson. v. the State of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Practice in the Supreme Court. Criminal law. Verdict. Before Judge Underwood. Floyd Superior Court. March Term, 1879.
Watson was indicted for larceny after trust. The indictment alleged that he was the agent at Rome of the Singer Manufacturing Company, and in that capacity received of various persons named specified amounts, "which said several sums of money the said Watson received in lawful currency of the United States, and then and there, in the said county of Floyd, did wrongfully and fraudulently convert the same to his own use, " etc.
The jury found defendant guilty. He moved in arrest of judgment on various grounds. The motion was overruled. Defendant then moved for a new trial, one of the grounds being that the court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment. Other grounds were that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and that the evidence failed to show what kind of money was appropriated. This motion was also overruled, and defendant excepted.
*C. T. Clements, solicitor general, by T. W. Alexander, for the state.
1. In this case it seems that there was a motion in arrest of judgment predicated upon many alleged errors in the bill of indictment; but the motion was overruled and was not excepted to so that we can consider it here. The only case brought before us is the conduct of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. The case of the State v. Watson in its totality has not been brought up, but only the motion for a new trial in that case. So that we cannot review the motion in arrest or the grounds thereof. It is true that the first ground of the motion for a new trial is the refusal of the court to arrest the judgment, but such refusal is no ground for a new trial. That refusal was itself a final judgment and should have been at once excepted to. The two motions are distinct, and each can be brought here, or both, if the whole case is brought up; but the law will not compel the court to travel in the circle of refusing the one motion and then make that refusal the ground for another distinct motion. The grounds are not repeated in the motion for a new trial as reasons why it should be granted; but the refusal to am st is the only ground connected with that motion which is alleged as error. This view will dispose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...as surplusage; if not surplusage, it must be proved as alleged. This rule is of great antiquity. Fulford v. State, 50 Ga. 591; Watson v. State, 64 Ga. 61; Berry v. State, 92 Ga. 47, 48, 17 S.E. 1006. It has been consistently followed. Haupt v. State, 108 Ga. 53(2), 34 S.E. 313 (number on an......
-
Jackson v. State
...Pl. & Pr., pp. 1357, 1356, 1341, 1353, 1355; 3 Jac. Fish. Dig., § §3174, 3175; 12 Cox C. C., 96; 1 C. & P., 313, 454; 4 Zab. (N. J.), 9: 64 Ga. 61; Hopk. Pen. Code, §§1154, 1168, 2278; 118 443; 18 O. St., 496, 513. On the pleas: Code, §4649; 70 Ga. 144; 53 Id., 602; 75 Id., 747; 71 Id., 283......
-
State v. Thomes
...States," is a necessary part of the description. In cases under statutes similar to this it has been invariably held otherwise. Watson v. State, 64 Ga. 61; State v. Noland, 111 Mo. 473, 19 S. W. 715; Mills v. State, 53 Neb. 263, 73 N. W. 761; Edelhoff v. State, 5 Wyo. 19, 36 P. It is object......
-
Craig v. State
...See Wallis v. State, 54 Ark. 611, 16 S.W. 821; Gerard v. State, 10 Tex.App. 690; Lewis v. State, 28 Tex.App. 140, 12 S.W. 736; Watson v. State, 64 Ga. 61. the pleader unnecessarily describes with such meticulous particularity the property or thing embezzled, he should prove it as laid. See ......