Hix v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hix v. State

137 S.E. 413, 36 Ga. App. 585, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 165

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1927

Docket17799

StatusPublished

This text of 137 S.E. 413 (Hix 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

Hix v. State, 137 S.E. 413, 36 Ga. App. 585, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

While the jury in this case could have taken as true the defendant’s statement that he was_ authorized by the prosecutrix to sell her cow, and that he did so, and failed to account for the proceeds of the sale because of his inability to find the prosecutrix, yet they declined to do so, and, as they had the right to do, accepted as true the testimony of the prosecutrix that the defendant borrowed the cow for the ostensible purpose of procuring milk for a sick baby, and, without the knowledge or consent of the lender, sold the cow, and failed to account for the proceeds of the sale. Viewing the case as a whole, its strength is not impressive, yet the evidence is sufficient to authorize an inference that the defendant had the intent to steal the cow when he borrowed it, and to sustain the conviction of simple larceny; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. Rice v. State, 6 Ga. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Munn v. State, 12 Ga. App. 479 (77 S. E. 591); Maxwell v. State, 25 Ga. App. 306 (103 S. E. 178).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

While the jury in this case could have taken as true the defendant’s statement that he was_ authorized by the prosecutrix to sell her cow, and that he did so, and failed to account for the proceeds of the sale because of his inability to find the prosecutrix, yet they declined to do so, and, as they had the right to do, accepted as true the testimony of the prosecutrix that the defendant borrowed the cow for the ostensible purpose of procuring milk for a sick baby, and, without the knowledge or consent of the lender, sold the cow, and failed to account for the proceeds of the sale. Viewing the case as a whole, its strength is not impressive, yet the evidence is sufficient to authorize an inference that the defendant had the intent to steal the cow when he borrowed it, and to sustain the conviction of simple larceny; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. Rice v. State, 6 Ga. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Munn v. State, 12 Ga. App. 479 (77 S. E. 591); Maxwell v. State, 25 Ga. App. 306 (103 S. E. 178).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 413, 36 Ga. App. 585, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hix-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack