Gibson v. State

78 S.E. 829, 13 Ga. App. 67, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 37
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 8, 1913
Docket4914
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 829 (Gibson 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
Gibson v. State, 78 S.E. 829, 13 Ga. App. 67, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Bussell, J.

The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment.

la) Where a timely demand is made by special demurrer, one indicted for simple larceny is entitled to have such a definite and particular description of property alleged to have been stolen as will enable him to [68]*68know the exact transaction in which it is claimed he violated the law; but a description of the property as “one metal church bell” belonging to a named church, is sufficiently definite to withstand a special demurrer which does not itself specify in what respect the description should be more minute.

Decided July 8, 1913. Indictment for simple larceny; from Miller superior court— Judge Worrill. November 30, 1913. W. I. Geer, for plaintiff in error. B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, J. A. Laing, B. B. Arnold, contra.

(6) In an indictment for simple larceny it is not necessary to state the location of the property or the place from which it was taken and carried away, further than to state that it was in the county in which the court had jurisdiction, unless a statement of the location is a descriptive averment essential to the identification of the property alleged to have been stolen.

(c) The words “Morning Star Colored Baptist Church” import a religious association, and such a right to the possession of property suitable for Church purposes as will authorize the ownership of any property used by it which may have been stolen to be laid in such a congregation of persons. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Campbell
368 N.C. 83 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2016)
State v. Traylor
282 S.E.2d 376 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
State v. Morrow
530 S.W.2d 60 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1975)
Norman v. State
175 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Stewart v. State
438 P.2d 387 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1968)
State v. Thornton
111 S.E.2d 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Simpson v. State
112 S.E.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Martin v. State
1950 OK CR 110 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1950)
Peek v. State
189 S.E. 372 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 S.E. 829, 13 Ga. App. 67, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-state-gactapp-1913.