Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1907 |
| Docket Number | 163. |
| Citation | 57 S.E. 1050,1 Ga.App. 158 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The offense of receiving stolen goods is a distinct crime, but the guilt of the principal, whether known or unknown, must be shown before a conviction of the accessory is authorized.
The essential facts necessary to be proved to show the commission of the offense by the principal must also be proved on the trial of the accessory.
Proof of the value is indispensable to show guilt of larceny, and likewise is absolutely necessary to be shown before the accessory (charged with receiving stolen goods) can lawfully be convicted.
The assignments of error are sufficiently specific; but there was no error in admitting the evidence to which objection was made.
The court cannot take judicial cognizance of the fact that cotton is a thing of value. An accusation of receiving stolen goods must be as particular and full, as to the descriptive averments of the crime to which the defendant is charged with being an accessory, as if he were charged with being a principal; and all material allegations, and even immaterial ones, unless they be wholly impertinent and irrelevant to the cause, must be proved.
Error from City Court of Wrightsville; Faircloth, Judge.
Gordon Wright was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and brings error. Reversed.
B. B Blount, for plaintiff in error.
J. L Kent, Sol., for the State.
Gordon Wright was tried on an accusation in the city court of Wrightsville for the offense of receiving stolen goods. He was convicted by the jury, and the case comes to this court on the single assignment of error in overruling his motion for new trial. In addition to the general grounds, the motion was amended and complaint was made of the admission of certain evidence which it was insisted was immaterial, irrelevant, and inadmissible. The accusation, so far as is material to this investigation, was in these words: "For that the said Gordon Wright, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 1st day of October, 1905, did then and there unlawfully, and with force and arms, did buy and receive certain goods and chattels, to wit, 800 pounds of seed cotton that had been stolen from H. V. and G. A. Tarbutton, knowing the same to have been so stolen, said seed cotton being the property jointly of H. V. and G. A. Tarbutton, and of the value of $25, said seed cotton having been stolen from the said H. V and G. A. Tarbutton by some one unknown to prosecutor, and the said Gordon Wright bought and received the same, knowing the same to have been so stolen." The evidence for the state showed that between 800 and 1,200 pounds of seed cotton was stolen from H. V. and G. A. Tarbutton some time during the night of October 1, 1905. The cotton was piled up in their field, and as soon as it was missed it was discovered that some one or more persons had carried it from the pile to a wagon in the public road near by. The tracks of the persons were plain in the field, and the recent rain made it possible to track a wagon from this newly made path in the field to the home of the defendant. Arriving at his home, the searching party could track the wagon no further, nor did they find any wagon there, but they asked the defendant if he had any cotton on hand. He replied in the affirmative, and that it was in one of the rooms of his house. He at first objected to showing the cotton, but afterwards consented, though he seemed to be much excited. He said that he would have to get the key from his wife, and when he went and got it and unlocked the room door he appeared to be scared. There was cotton in the room in sacks which were damp. There had been a shower of rain in the early night. The cotton was yellow, like that raised on Tarbutton's place. The defendant was not cultivating red land. He cultivated sandy land in 1905. H. V. and G. A. Tarbutton cultivated red land, which is a rarity in that section. All of the cotton in the room was sacked, and had been raised on red land. Locks of cotton were seen in the road where the wagon stopped, which corresponded in color with that in the sacks. This was in Johnson county, Ga. The defendant was told that some one had stolen Tarbutton's cotton the night before, and H. V. Tarbutton said he told him that he thought the cotton in the room was theirs. Defendant denied this, and said this cotton came out of his own field. Search was made for cotton at various places in the neighborhood, but no other cotton was found. The state further proved that defendant's crop of cotton in 1905...
To continue reading
Request your trial