Bailey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. State

129 S.E. 19, 34 Ga. App. 226, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 168

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 29, 1925

Docket16553

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.E. 19 (Bailey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. State, 129 S.E. 19, 34 Ga. App. 226, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Bailey was convicted of the offense of larceny. The indictment alleged that he “did wrongfully, fraudulently and privately take, steal, and carry away, with intent to steal the same, one Packard straight 8 automobile of the value of $4,000.00 and the property of Bobert F. Maddox Sr.” The undisputed evidence proved the title of the automobile to be in Mrs. Bobert F. Maddox Sr. The court charged the jury as follows: “The burden of proof is upon the State to prove every material allegation in the bill of indictment, and if you find, in considering the bill of indictment, that the property is alleged to be the property of B. F. Maddox Sr., and you find from the evidence that the property is the property of Mrs. B. F. Maddox Sr., wife of B. F. Maddox Sr., that, under the law, would be sufficient as to that part of the allegation.” This excerpt from the charge of the court is complained of upon the ground that it was prejudicial and not a correct statement of the law. The indictment having charged the larceny of the automobile and alleged the ownership to be in Bóbert F. Maddox Sr., and there being no evidence that Bobert F. Maddox Sr., at the time of the larceny, was in possession of the automobile, the proof did not meet the allegation, and the excerpt from the charge of the court [227]*227complained of was erroneous. For the reason pointed ont the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Luke, J.

Bailey was convicted of the offense of larceny. The indictment alleged that he “did wrongfully, fraudulently and privately take, steal, and carry away, with intent to steal the same, one Packard straight 8 automobile of the value of $4,000.00 and the property of Bobert F. Maddox Sr.” The undisputed evidence proved the title of the automobile to be in Mrs. Bobert F. Maddox Sr. The court charged the jury as follows: “The burden of proof is upon the State to prove every material allegation in the bill of indictment, and if you find, in considering the bill of indictment, that the property is alleged to be the property of B. F. Maddox Sr., and you find from the evidence that the property is the property of Mrs. B. F. Maddox Sr., wife of B. F. Maddox Sr., that, under the law, would be sufficient as to that part of the allegation.” This excerpt from the charge of the court is complained of upon the ground that it was prejudicial and not a correct statement of the law. The indictment having charged the larceny of the automobile and alleged the ownership to be in Bóbert F. Maddox Sr., and there being no evidence that Bobert F. Maddox Sr., at the time of the larceny, was in possession of the automobile, the proof did not meet the allegation, and the excerpt from the charge of the court [227]*227complained of was erroneous. For the reason pointed ont the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 19, 34 Ga. App. 226, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-gactapp-1925.