McKenzie v. State

68 S.E. 622, 8 Ga. App. 124, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 72
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 25, 1910
Docket2760
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 622 (McKenzie 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
McKenzie v. State, 68 S.E. 622, 8 Ga. App. 124, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The assignments of error are without merit. The evidence authorized' the conviction of the defendant, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

2. In view of the fact that the defendant, by means of cross-examination of a witness for the State,' put his character in issue, it was not error to admit the record of the defendant’s conviction of the offense of simple larceny in another case. Henderson v. State, 5 Ga. App. 495 (63 S. E. 535). The rule which permits the prosecution to 'rebut evidence ad[125]*125duced for the purpose of proving the defendant’s good character is not affected by the fact that the witness used for the purpose of showing good character was called to the stand by the State. •

Decided July 25, 1910. Indictment for larceny after trust; from Habersham superior court — Judge Kimsey. June 1, 1910. Robert McMillan, for plaintiff in error. W. A. Charters, solicitor-general, contra.

3. The fact that the owner of the property had not consented to its conversion was sufficiently shown by the circumstances under which the properly was moved, as well as by the unequivocal testimony of the agent of the owner that he had entire charge of her business and that he had not consented. The jury were authorized to believe the statement of the defendant to the effect that the owner had consented to his converting the property to his own use, but they were not required to believe the statement in preference to the sworn testimony, corroborated as it was by the circumstances of the taking. One can not collect a debt due him by taking the property of another in payment thereof without the owner’s consent; nor can an agent appointed to sell, in the absence of express authorization to that effect, be himself the buyer. MacKenzie v. Minis, 132 Ga. 330 (63 S. E. 900, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003). Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Waters v. State
555 S.E.2d 859 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Jones v. State
363 S.E.2d 529 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1988)
Phillips v. State
321 S.E.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Starling v. State
310 S.E.2d 234 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Franklin v. State
303 S.E.2d 22 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1983)
Johnson v. State
67 S.E.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Campbell v. Tatum
30 S.E.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Mimbs v. State
5 S.E.2d 770 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Moyers v. State
197 S.E. 846 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 S.E. 622, 8 Ga. App. 124, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-state-gactapp-1910.