Howard v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howard v. State

78 S.E.2d 876, 89 Ga. App. 158, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 925

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1953

Docket34924

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 S.E.2d 876 (Howard 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

Howard v. State, 78 S.E.2d 876, 89 Ga. App. 158, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 925 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

1. An indictment drawn in the language of Code § 26-6502, making it unlawful to carry on a lottery, is sufficient, provided it specifies or names the kind of lottery being operated. Kolshorn v. State, 97 Ga. 343 (1) (23 S. E. 829); Guthas v. State, 54 Ga. App. 217 (1) (187 S. E. 847); Hodges v. State, 55 Ga. App. 670 (1) (191 S. E. 182); Snead v. State, 62 Ga. App. 541 (8 S. E. 2d 735); President v. State, 83 Ga. App. 731, 733 (64 S. E. 2d 596). Accordingly, an indictment charging that the defendant did “keep, maintain, and employ, and carry on a lottery, the same being a scheme and device for the hazarding of money known and designated as the ‘bug’,” is sufficient as against a demurrer that the same fails to put the defendant on notice of the kind of lottery attempted to be charged, and that it fails to set forth a crime under the laws of Georgia.

2. An order overruling a general demurrer is not a proper ground of a motion for new trial, and an assignment of error on such ground cannot be considered. Don v. Don, 163 Ga. 31(3) (135 S. E. 409); Dixon v. Evans, 58 Ga. App. 583(4) (193 S. E. 470).

3. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are abandoned. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, the sole special ground of which attempted to assign error on a demurrer ruling.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. J. T. Thomasson, James T. Thomasson, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Wright Lifford, Solicitor-General, contra.

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

Townsend, J.

1. An indictment drawn in the language of Code § 26-6502, making it unlawful to carry on a lottery, is sufficient, provided it specifies or names the kind of lottery being operated. Kolshorn v. State, 97 Ga. 343 (1) (23 S. E. 829); Guthas v. State, 54 Ga. App. 217 (1) (187 S. E. 847); Hodges v. State, 55 Ga. App. 670 (1) (191 S. E. 182); Snead v. State, 62 Ga. App. 541 (8 S. E. 2d 735); President v. State, 83 Ga. App. 731, 733 (64 S. E. 2d 596). Accordingly, an indictment charging that the defendant did “keep, maintain, and employ, and carry on a lottery, the same being a scheme and device for the hazarding of money known and designated as the ‘bug’,” is sufficient as against a demurrer that the same fails to put the defendant on notice of the kind of lottery attempted to be charged, and that it fails to set forth a crime under the laws of Georgia.

2. An order overruling a general demurrer is not a proper ground of a motion for new trial, and an assignment of error on such ground cannot be considered. Don v. Don, 163 Ga. 31(3) (135 S. E. 409); Dixon v. Evans, 58 Ga. App. 583(4) (193 S. E. 470).

3. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are abandoned. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, the sole special ground of which attempted to assign error on a demurrer ruling.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. J. T. Thomasson, James T. Thomasson, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Wright Lifford, Solicitor-General, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E.2d 876, 89 Ga. App. 158, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-gactapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack