Birt v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Birt v. State

57 S.E. 965, 1 Ga. App. 150, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 174

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 5, 1907

Docket173

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 57 S.E. 965 (Birt 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

Birt v. State, 57 S.E. 965, 1 Ga. App. 150, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. An indictment which charges that the accused was intrusted with “a ring of the value of $80,” for the purpose of pawning said ring for the owner and bringing the money to him, and “fraudulently' converted the said ring to his own use,” is a good indictment, under the Penal Code, § 194. Such indictment need not allege that any demand was made for the ring or the proceeds thereof. Under the section of the Penal Code, supra, there are three essential elements of the crime of larceny after trust, to wit: the bailment, the purpose of the bailment, and the fraudulent conversion. The crime is complete when the fraudulent conversion takes place. Keys v. State, 112 Ga. 392; Alderman v. State, 57 Ga. 367.

2. On the trial of the accused under said indictment, a request to the court to instruct the jury that “a verdict against the defendant would not be authorized, unless the evidence showed that a demand was made on the defendant for the proceeds of the ring before the commencement of the prosecution,” was. properly refused. See Keys v. State, 112 Ga. 392, where sections 191, 192, and 194 of the Penal Code, defining different classes of larceny after trust delegated, are fully discussed and distinguished.

8. The evidence in the case fully warranted the verdict, and the judgment of the court, refusing to grant a new trial, was right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. An indictment which charges that the accused was intrusted with “a ring of the value of $80,” for the purpose of pawning said ring for the owner and bringing the money to him, and “fraudulently' converted the said ring to his own use,” is a good indictment, under the Penal Code, § 194. Such indictment need not allege that any demand was made for the ring or the proceeds thereof. Under the section of the Penal Code, supra, there are three essential elements of the crime of larceny after trust, to wit: the bailment, the purpose of the bailment, and the fraudulent conversion. The crime is complete when the fraudulent conversion takes place. Keys v. State, 112 Ga. 392; Alderman v. State, 57 Ga. 367.

2. On the trial of the accused under said indictment, a request to the court to instruct the jury that “a verdict against the defendant would not be authorized, unless the evidence showed that a demand was made on the defendant for the proceeds of the ring before the commencement of the prosecution,” was. properly refused. See Keys v. State, 112 Ga. 392, where sections 191, 192, and 194 of the Penal Code, defining different classes of larceny after trust delegated, are fully discussed and distinguished.

8. The evidence in the case fully warranted the verdict, and the judgment of the court, refusing to grant a new trial, was right.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E. 965, 1 Ga. App. 150, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birt-v-state-gactapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack