Blount v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blount v. State

74 S.E. 1099, 11 Ga. App. 239, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 346

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 5, 1912

Docket4020

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 1099 (Blount 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

Blount v. State, 74 S.E. 1099, 11 Ga. App. 239, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 346 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The ruling on the demurrer to the indictment is fully controlled by the ruling of this court in Nalley v. State, ante, 15 (74 S. E. 767), and decisions therein cited.

[a) The charge of forgery and that of uttering and publishing a forged paper may be joined in'the same count.

2. An intent to defraud is an essential ingredient of the offense of uttering and publishing a forgery, and the court in this case having omitted to próperly instruct the jury that in order to constitute the offense, the intent to defraud must be shown, a new trial will be granted. The jury should be instructed that they must be satisfied that the writing mentioned in the indictment was forged or uttered (as the ease may be) with an intent to defraud, or they should acquit the defendant. A new trial is more readily granted because of the fact that the evidence of fraudulent intent is very weak and unsatisfactory. Judgment reversed.

The demurrer was on the grounds that no offense is charged in the indictment, and that two separate and distinct offenses are charged in one count.

Way & Burkhalter, for plaintiff in error. N. J. Norman, solicitor-general, Edwin A. Cohen, contra.

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

Russell, J.

1. The ruling on the demurrer to the indictment is fully controlled by the ruling of this court in Nalley v. State, ante, 15 (74 S. E. 767), and decisions therein cited.

[a) The charge of forgery and that of uttering and publishing a forged paper may be joined in'the same count.

2. An intent to defraud is an essential ingredient of the offense of uttering and publishing a forgery, and the court in this case having omitted to próperly instruct the jury that in order to constitute the offense, the intent to defraud must be shown, a new trial will be granted. The jury should be instructed that they must be satisfied that the writing mentioned in the indictment was forged or uttered (as the ease may be) with an intent to defraud, or they should acquit the defendant. A new trial is more readily granted because of the fact that the evidence of fraudulent intent is very weak and unsatisfactory. Judgment reversed.

The demurrer was on the grounds that no offense is charged in the indictment, and that two separate and distinct offenses are charged in one count.

Way & Burkhalter, for plaintiff in error. N. J. Norman, solicitor-general, Edwin A. Cohen, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 1099, 11 Ga. App. 239, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blount-v-state-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack