Hornsby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hornsby v. State

175 S.E. 400, 49 Ga. App. 305, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 375

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1934

Docket24138

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 400 (Hornsby 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

Hornsby v. State, 175 S.E. 400, 49 Ga. App. 305, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 375 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The indictment charged the defendant with burglarizing “the store-house and place of business of the Piedmont Peed and Grocery Company, a corporation.” The name “The Piedmont Peed and Grocery Company” connotes a corporation, and the allegation in the indictment that it was a corporation was surplusage and did not have to [306]*306be proved, since the corporate entity of the company was not in issue upon the defendant’s trial. Ager v. State, 2 Ga. App. 158 (58 S. E. 374); Moore v. State, 27 Ga. App. 781 (2) (110 S. E. 55).

Decided June 26, 1934. Ií. A. Allen, L. O. Dotson, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, E. A. Stephens, contra.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of its context, was not prejudicial to the accused and was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The indictment charged the defendant with burglarizing “the store-house and place of business of the Piedmont Peed and Grocery Company, a corporation.” The name “The Piedmont Peed and Grocery Company” connotes a corporation, and the allegation in the indictment that it was a corporation was surplusage and did not have to [306]*306be proved, since the corporate entity of the company was not in issue upon the defendant’s trial. Ager v. State, 2 Ga. App. 158 (58 S. E. 374); Moore v. State, 27 Ga. App. 781 (2) (110 S. E. 55).

Decided June 26, 1934. Ií. A. Allen, L. O. Dotson, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, E. A. Stephens, contra.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of its context, was not prejudicial to the accused and was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 400, 49 Ga. App. 305, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornsby-v-state-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack