Fulmore v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fulmore v. State

70 S.E. 77, 8 Ga. App. 703, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 31, 1911

Docket3114

StatusPublished

This text of 70 S.E. 77 (Fulmore 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

Fulmore v. State, 70 S.E. 77, 8 Ga. App. 703, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The two defendants were charged with hog-stealing. It seems that the prosecutrix lost a hog, and that a hog answering to this description had broken into the corn-field on the place where the two defendants were employed in some capacity — as tenants or laborers. The evidence disclosed that after the two defendants had been running this trespassing hog for a while in the presence of several witnesses, one of them shot it. He denied the shooting, claiming that he had only helped run the hog, but the evidence pretty well established that he shot it. There is no proof that after the hog was killed either of the defendants attempted to carrv it away or to convert it to his own use. All the evidence tends to show that they were trying to get the hog out of the field, and probably shot it out of that anger which the exercise of running a hog out of a field usually generates. If the defendants had been convicted of the malicious shooting of a hog, we probably would not be authorized to interfere, but we do not think that the essential elements of a larceny are shown. Cf. Paulk v. State, 2 Ga. App. 660 (58 S. E. 1108).

Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

The two defendants were charged with hog-stealing. It seems that the prosecutrix lost a hog, and that a hog answering to this description had broken into the corn-field on the place where the two defendants were employed in some capacity — as tenants or laborers. The evidence disclosed that after the two defendants had been running this trespassing hog for a while in the presence of several witnesses, one of them shot it. He denied the shooting, claiming that he had only helped run the hog, but the evidence pretty well established that he shot it. There is no proof that after the hog was killed either of the defendants attempted to carrv it away or to convert it to his own use. All the evidence tends to show that they were trying to get the hog out of the field, and probably shot it out of that anger which the exercise of running a hog out of a field usually generates. If the defendants had been convicted of the malicious shooting of a hog, we probably would not be authorized to interfere, but we do not think that the essential elements of a larceny are shown. Cf. Paulk v. State, 2 Ga. App. 660 (58 S. E. 1108).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 77, 8 Ga. App. 703, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulmore-v-state-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack