Cosby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cosby v. State

112 S.E. 154, 28 Ga. App. 550, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 675

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1922

Docket13374

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 154 (Cosby 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

Cosby v. State, 112 S.E. 154, 28 Ga. App. 550, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 675 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the indictment the ownership of the personal property charged to have been stolen was laid in one D. R. Short, and it was alleged that the property was “ under levy made by said Short ” and was in his legal possession and ownership. Upon the trial the evidence showed that title to the property was not in Short, but that when stolen the property was in his lawful possession as deputy sheriff [551]*551of the county. Held-. There was no variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof. Bennett v. State, 28 Ga. App. 235 (110 S. E. 756). See Goldberg v. State, 25 Ga. App. 198 (103 S, E. 90).

Decided May 9, 1922.

Indictment for larceny; from Wilkes superior court — Judge Shurley. January 30, 1922.

F. W. Gilbert, I. T. Irvin Jr., for plaintiff in error. M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., conour.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the indictment the ownership of the personal property charged to have been stolen was laid in one D. R. Short, and it was alleged that the property was “ under levy made by said Short ” and was in his legal possession and ownership. Upon the trial the evidence showed that title to the property was not in Short, but that when stolen the property was in his lawful possession as deputy sheriff [551]*551of the county. Held-. There was no variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof. Bennett v. State, 28 Ga. App. 235 (110 S. E. 756). See Goldberg v. State, 25 Ga. App. 198 (103 S, E. 90).

Decided May 9, 1922.

Indictment for larceny; from Wilkes superior court — Judge Shurley. January 30, 1922.

F. W. Gilbert, I. T. Irvin Jr., for plaintiff in error. M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., conour.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 154, 28 Ga. App. 550, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosby-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack