Hammontree v. State
This text of 103 S.E. 738 (Hammontree 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.
Opinion
1. Where in an indictment for burglary the ownership of the place alleged to have been burglarized is laid in a name which imports a corporation, “the presumption is that it is a corporation, and, in the absence of affirmative proof by the accused that no such corporation existed, and where there is no allegation in the indictment that it was a corporation, it is not necessary for the State to prove the fact of incorporation. And where a final judgment has been rendered, a judgment is not void, nor voidable, for the mere want of such proof. ” Vaughn v. State, 17 Ga. App. 268 (1) (86 S. E. 461). Under this ruling the first special ground of the motion for a new tidal is without merit.
2. The defendant’s conviction was amply authorized by the evidence, [545]*545exclusive of the testimony of his accomplice. The court, therefore, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, did not err in failing to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to the weight to be given the testimony of an accomplice.
3. In the light of the facts of the ease and of the charge as a whole, there is no substantial merit in any of the other assignments of error upon the charge of the court.
4 Hie verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
103 S.E. 738, 25 Ga. App. 544, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammontree-v-state-gactapp-1920.