Lanier v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lanier v. State

103 S.E. 730, 25 Ga. App. 489, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 29

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1920

Docket11591

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 730 (Lanier 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

Lanier v. State, 103 S.E. 730, 25 Ga. App. 489, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 29 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself. In the instant case a special ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon the refusal of the court to grant a continuance on account of the absence of alleged material witnesses for -the defendant. The ground, however, fails to set out the showing made by the defendant in support of the motion, and it is not attached thereto as an exhibit. The ground, therefore, can not be considered.

2. Simple larceny is the wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by any person, of the personal goods of another, with intent to steal the same. The thief may be indicted in any county into which he may carry the goods. Penal Code (1910), § 152.

(a) While, under the act of 1916 (Ga. L. 1916, p. 154; Park’s Penal Code Supp. (1917) § 183%), the stealing of an automobile is a felony, it remains (like cattle or hog-stealing, which also are felonies) simple larceny.

(b) Under the above ruling and the facts of the case, the defendant, was subject to indictment in the county of Franklin.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the .court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself. In the instant case a special ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon the refusal of the court to grant a continuance on account of the absence of alleged material witnesses for -the defendant. The ground, however, fails to set out the showing made by the defendant in support of the motion, and it is not attached thereto as an exhibit. The ground, therefore, can not be considered.

2. Simple larceny is the wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by any person, of the personal goods of another, with intent to steal the same. The thief may be indicted in any county into which he may carry the goods. Penal Code (1910), § 152.

(a) While, under the act of 1916 (Ga. L. 1916, p. 154; Park’s Penal Code Supp. (1917) § 183%), the stealing of an automobile is a felony, it remains (like cattle or hog-stealing, which also are felonies) simple larceny.

(b) Under the above ruling and the facts of the case, the defendant, was subject to indictment in the county of Franklin.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the .court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 730, 25 Ga. App. 489, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack