Parks v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parks v. State

96 S.E. 1050, 22 Ga. App. 621, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 634

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1918

Docket9800

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 S.E. 1050 (Parks 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

Parks v. State, 96 S.E. 1050, 22 Ga. App. 621, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The statute defining the offense of burglary (Penal Code of 1910, § 146) states that “all outhouses contiguous to or within the curtilage or protection of the mansion or dwelling-house shall be considered as parts of the same.” Under the ruling in Bryant v. State, 60 Ga. 358, an outhouse may be considered a part of the dwelling-house if it be within its protection, although it may not be contiguous thereto or within its curtilage. In the instant case the corn-crib’ broken into, and from which corn was stolen, and the prosecutor’s dwelling-house were in a “no fence” county, and neither was enclosed by any fence, and a public road ran between them. When the offense was being committed [622]*622the prosecutor and his wife, at night, from thei/r dwelling-house heard and saw the defendant breaking into the corn-crib. This clearly shows that the corn-crib was so located as to be within the protection of the dwelling-house, and therefore, under the ruling just stated, it must be considered as a part thereof.

Decided October 8, 1918.

Indictment for burglary; from Dawson superior court—-Judge Jones. May 8, 1918.

R. H. Baker, B. P. GaiTlard Jr., for plaintiff in error. Robert McMillan, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The conviction of the offense of burglary was amply supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The statute defining the offense of burglary (Penal Code of 1910, § 146) states that “all outhouses contiguous to or within the curtilage or protection of the mansion or dwelling-house shall be considered as parts of the same.” Under the ruling in Bryant v. State, 60 Ga. 358, an outhouse may be considered a part of the dwelling-house if it be within its protection, although it may not be contiguous thereto or within its curtilage. In the instant case the corn-crib’ broken into, and from which corn was stolen, and the prosecutor’s dwelling-house were in a “no fence” county, and neither was enclosed by any fence, and a public road ran between them. When the offense was being committed [622]*622the prosecutor and his wife, at night, from thei/r dwelling-house heard and saw the defendant breaking into the corn-crib. This clearly shows that the corn-crib was so located as to be within the protection of the dwelling-house, and therefore, under the ruling just stated, it must be considered as a part thereof.

Decided October 8, 1918.

Indictment for burglary; from Dawson superior court—-Judge Jones. May 8, 1918.

R. H. Baker, B. P. GaiTlard Jr., for plaintiff in error. Robert McMillan, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The conviction of the offense of burglary was amply supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E. 1050, 22 Ga. App. 621, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack