Richter v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Richter v. State

61 S.E. 147, 4 Ga. App. 274, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 269

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1908

Docket1061

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 S.E. 147 (Richter 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

Richter v. State, 61 S.E. 147, 4 Ga. App. 274, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 269 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Where the testimony of an absent witness would not be admissible or material, it is manifestly not an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance because of his absence.

2. An accusation charging the fraudulent sale of mortgaged property, is sufficient which alleges, that A executed a mortgage to B, covering, with other property, “one black horse mule about ten years old named Doe,” and that A, without the consent of B and with intent to defraud B, did dispose of the said mule, to the loss and damage of B in the sum of $160. It is not necessary to allege in the accusation, more specifically, “how or in what manner” A disposed of the mule, or to whom he sold it, or “how or in what way” a loss of $160 was sustained by B.

3. Where the accused was charged with disposing of a mule which he had mortgaged, with intent to defraud the mortgagee, a statement in a letter proved to have been written by him after his arrest, that he had “traded the mule,” was pertinent to the issue, and the letter was properly admitted in evidence.

4. Where the prosecutor testified that he had been “injured in the sum of $160 by the fraudulent sale of one black horse mule about ten years old,” value was sufficiently proved.

5. No error of law appears, and the verdict is amply supported by the evidence. p Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. Where the testimony of an absent witness would not be admissible or material, it is manifestly not an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance because of his absence.

2. An accusation charging the fraudulent sale of mortgaged property, is sufficient which alleges, that A executed a mortgage to B, covering, with other property, “one black horse mule about ten years old named Doe,” and that A, without the consent of B and with intent to defraud B, did dispose of the said mule, to the loss and damage of B in the sum of $160. It is not necessary to allege in the accusation, more specifically, “how or in what manner” A disposed of the mule, or to whom he sold it, or “how or in what way” a loss of $160 was sustained by B.

3. Where the accused was charged with disposing of a mule which he had mortgaged, with intent to defraud the mortgagee, a statement in a letter proved to have been written by him after his arrest, that he had “traded the mule,” was pertinent to the issue, and the letter was properly admitted in evidence.

4. Where the prosecutor testified that he had been “injured in the sum of $160 by the fraudulent sale of one black horse mule about ten years old,” value was sufficiently proved.

5. No error of law appears, and the verdict is amply supported by the evidence. p Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.E. 147, 4 Ga. App. 274, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richter-v-state-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack