Boatright v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Boatright v. State

72 S.E. 599, 10 Ga. App. 29, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 627

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1911

Docket3434

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 599 (Boatright 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

Boatright v. State, 72 S.E. 599, 10 Ga. App. 29, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. There was no error in striking the plea to the jurisdiction. The mere fact that there were irregularities in the justice’s court during the commitment trial would n°t deprive the city court of jurisdiction to try the case, on accusation duly made. If thé commitment was irregular or illegal, the defendant might have raised such questions by habeas corpus, but could not, after having been bound over and having given bond, plead them to the jurisdiction of the city court.

2. The evidence showed that the defendant, an employee of a railway company, was seen to leave an express car with a package and go to an old passenger car, where he left it. Investigation disclosed that a barrel of shad, contained in the express car, had been opened with a knife. The defendant was watched, and was seen to return to the passenger car and get the package and start toward home. The express agent overtook him, and, after defendant’s denial that the package contained fish, broke it open and found two shad. The agent went to every fish dealer in town, and none of them had any such fish in stock on that day. Held, the corpus delicti was properly proved, and the verdict of guilty was authorized. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

1. There was no error in striking the plea to the jurisdiction. The mere fact that there were irregularities in the justice’s court during the commitment trial would n°t deprive the city court of jurisdiction to try the case, on accusation duly made. If thé commitment was irregular or illegal, the defendant might have raised such questions by habeas corpus, but could not, after having been bound over and having given bond, plead them to the jurisdiction of the city court.

2. The evidence showed that the defendant, an employee of a railway company, was seen to leave an express car with a package and go to an old passenger car, where he left it. Investigation disclosed that a barrel of shad, contained in the express car, had been opened with a knife. The defendant was watched, and was seen to return to the passenger car and get the package and start toward home. The express agent overtook him, and, after defendant’s denial that the package contained fish, broke it open and found two shad. The agent went to every fish dealer in town, and none of them had any such fish in stock on that day. Held, the corpus delicti was properly proved, and the verdict of guilty was authorized. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 599, 10 Ga. App. 29, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatright-v-state-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack