King v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

King v. State

111 S.E. 84, 28 Ga. App. 228, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 408

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1922

Docket13158

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 84 (King 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

King v. State, 111 S.E. 84, 28 Ga. App. 228, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. ¿T.

1. Where a demurrer to a plea of misnomer raises the issue of idem sonans, and the two names, although spelled differently, necessarily sound almost alike, the issue is to be determined, as matter of law, by the court and not by the jury. Veal v. State, 116 Ga. 589 (42 S. E. 705), and authorities cited.

2. The defendant was indicted under the name of Sampson fling, and filed a plea of misnomer in which he alleged that his true name was Sampson Keen, that he had always been known and called by that name, and' that he had never been known or called by the name of Sampson King. On motion of the State the court struck the plea as being insufficient in law. Held, that the names King and Keen are idem sonans, as a matter of law, and the court did not err in its ruling. Roland v. State, 127 Ga. 401 (56 S. E. 412), and citations.

3. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court it is not error for the trial judge to fail to charge upon impeachment of witnesses, in the absence of a timely written request therefor.

4. The charge of the court upon the subject of a reasonable doubt was sufficiently full, in the absence of a timely written request for a more detailed charge thereon. ^

5. The remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

6. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, concur.

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

Broyles, C. ¿T.

1. Where a demurrer to a plea of misnomer raises the issue of idem sonans, and the two names, although spelled differently, necessarily sound almost alike, the issue is to be determined, as matter of law, by the court and not by the jury. Veal v. State, 116 Ga. 589 (42 S. E. 705), and authorities cited.

2. The defendant was indicted under the name of Sampson fling, and filed a plea of misnomer in which he alleged that his true name was Sampson Keen, that he had always been known and called by that name, and' that he had never been known or called by the name of Sampson King. On motion of the State the court struck the plea as being insufficient in law. Held, that the names King and Keen are idem sonans, as a matter of law, and the court did not err in its ruling. Roland v. State, 127 Ga. 401 (56 S. E. 412), and citations.

3. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court it is not error for the trial judge to fail to charge upon impeachment of witnesses, in the absence of a timely written request therefor.

4. The charge of the court upon the subject of a reasonable doubt was sufficiently full, in the absence of a timely written request for a more detailed charge thereon. ^

5. The remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

6. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 84, 28 Ga. App. 228, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack