Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Martin v. State

Martin v. State

20 S.E. 271, 95 Ga. 478
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 15, 1894·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

[479] Judgment in both cases affirmed.

Error is assigned o-n the following charge: “If you believe from the testimony in this case that the articles mentioned in this bill of indictment were stolen from a warehouse instead of a storehouse, and that goods, wares and other valuable merchandise were stored in said warehouse by E. M. Bass & Co., and they delivered some goods to their customers from the same, and that the articles mentioned in this bill of indictment were stored in said warehouse and from thence stolen, then I charge you that a warehouse is a storehouse within the meaning of the law, and the fact that the word storehouse is used in the bill of indictment, and the evidence shows, if it ■does show, that the goods were stolen from this warehouse, would make no difference, and "the defendant should not be acquitted on that account.” Oscar Reese, for plaintiff in error. T. A. Atkinson, solicitor-general, and R. D. Jackson, by H. M. Reid, contra.

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

Martin v. State, 20 S.E. 271, 95 Ga. 478 (Ga. 1894).

20 S.E. 271 (Martin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Turner v. State
184 S.E.2d 488 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Buntin v. State
162 S.E.2d 234 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Johnson v. State
99 S.E.2d 484 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Harris v. State
12 S.E.2d 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Coleman v. State
7 S.E.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Ford v. State
134 S.E. 95 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Smiley v. State
98 S.E. 125 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Roberts v. State
89 S.E. 1055 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)