Holmes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holmes v. State

147 S.E. 776, 39 Ga. App. 556, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1929

Docket19511

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E. 776 (Holmes 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

Holmes v. State, 147 S.E. 776, 39 Ga. App. 556, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted, under section 720 of the Penal Code of 1910, of the wrongful sale of personal property which, it was charged, he had previously included in a bill of sale to a certain corporation. It was alleged in the indictment that the bill of sale was executed by the defendant, John Holmes, and Mrs. Victoria Holmes, whereas upon the trial the undisputed evidence disclosed that it was executed by Mrs. Victoria Holmes alone. The allegation as to the execution of the bill of sale being essential, it must be proved as laid in the indictment, and the variance between the allegation and the proof is fatal. See, in this connection, Rogers v. State, 29 Ga. App. 363, 365 (115 S. E. 668), and cit.; Horton v. State, 21 Ga. App. 120 (3) (93 S. E. 1012); Thompson v. State, 118 Ga. 330 (3) (45 S. E. 410); Perkins v. State, 29 Ga. App. 278 (3), 280 (115 S. E. 27), and cit. It follows that the verdict was contrary to law and that the court erred in refusing the grant of a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted, under section 720 of the Penal Code of 1910, of the wrongful sale of personal property which, it was charged, he had previously included in a bill of sale to a certain corporation. It was alleged in the indictment that the bill of sale was executed by the defendant, John Holmes, and Mrs. Victoria Holmes, whereas upon the trial the undisputed evidence disclosed that it was executed by Mrs. Victoria Holmes alone. The allegation as to the execution of the bill of sale being essential, it must be proved as laid in the indictment, and the variance between the allegation and the proof is fatal. See, in this connection, Rogers v. State, 29 Ga. App. 363, 365 (115 S. E. 668), and cit.; Horton v. State, 21 Ga. App. 120 (3) (93 S. E. 1012); Thompson v. State, 118 Ga. 330 (3) (45 S. E. 410); Perkins v. State, 29 Ga. App. 278 (3), 280 (115 S. E. 27), and cit. It follows that the verdict was contrary to law and that the court erred in refusing the grant of a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 776, 39 Ga. App. 556, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack