Newman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Newman v. State

150 S.E. 449, 40 Ga. App. 553, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 643

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1929

Docket20023

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 449 (Newman 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

Newman v. State, 150 S.E. 449, 40 Ga. App. 553, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 643 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The accused was convicted of larceny after trust un-

der an indictment which charged that he was entrusted by the “Farmers & Merchants Bank of Cowart, S. C.” with $510 in money, and that subsequently he wrongfully and feloniously converted the money to his own use. Upon the trial the undisputed evidence showed that the money was entrusted to the accused by one Whitfield for the purpose of being delivered to the Farmers & Merchants Bank of Cowart, South Carolina, and that Whitfield was acting as the agent of that bank when he entrusted the money to the defendant. Held: Under these facts a trust was created between the bank and the defendant, and there was no variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof submitted. See, in this connection, McCrary v. State, 81 Ga. 334 (6 S. E. 588); McNish v. State, 88 Ga. 499 (14 S. E. 865); Berrien v. State, 156 Ga. 380 (1-a) (119 S. E. 300); Hagood v. State, 5 Ga. App. 80 (6) (62 S. E. 641).

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Luke and Bloodwortli, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The accused was convicted of larceny after trust un-

der an indictment which charged that he was entrusted by the “Farmers & Merchants Bank of Cowart, S. C.” with $510 in money, and that subsequently he wrongfully and feloniously converted the money to his own use. Upon the trial the undisputed evidence showed that the money was entrusted to the accused by one Whitfield for the purpose of being delivered to the Farmers & Merchants Bank of Cowart, South Carolina, and that Whitfield was acting as the agent of that bank when he entrusted the money to the defendant. Held: Under these facts a trust was created between the bank and the defendant, and there was no variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof submitted. See, in this connection, McCrary v. State, 81 Ga. 334 (6 S. E. 588); McNish v. State, 88 Ga. 499 (14 S. E. 865); Berrien v. State, 156 Ga. 380 (1-a) (119 S. E. 300); Hagood v. State, 5 Ga. App. 80 (6) (62 S. E. 641).

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Luke and Bloodwortli, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 449, 40 Ga. App. 553, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

1. The accused was convicted of larceny after trust un-

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack