Samples v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Samples v. State

89 S.E. 375, 18 Ga. App. 286, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 298

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1916

Docket7373

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 375 (Samples 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

Samples v. State, 89 S.E. 375, 18 Ga. App. 286, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The instruction to the jury, that “in this case circumstantial evidence is offered as proof of facts as would tend by their consistency to show the guilt of the accused,” while somewhat confused, does not contain an expression or intimation of opinion by the court as to what was proved, or as to the guilt of the accused, and, when taken in connection with its context, could not have been so understood by the jury.

2. The evidence relied on to convict the defendant of simple larceny was largely circumstantial. The cow which he was charged with stealing was found tied on or near his premises, and near other cows belonging to him. In his statement at the trial he claimed that he found this cow among his cows, and that she was “rearing around and cutting up,” and that he tied her apart from his cows with a piece of line, to keep her from hurting one of his cows that was heavy with calf, and also to prevent her from getting into his oats. Under this contention of the defendant it was error for the court to refuse to give a timely written request to charge section 2001 of the Civil Code of 1910, which is as follows: “Any person may, upon his own freehold or the highway thereto, or being in charge of one, and not elsewhere, take up all estrays of animals of a domestic or useful nature either for labor or flesh.” Judgment reversed.

Indictment for larceny of cow; from Bibb superior court— Judge Mathews. February 19, 1916.

W. A. McClellan, for plaintiff in error. John P. Boss, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, J.

1. The instruction to the jury, that “in this case circumstantial evidence is offered as proof of facts as would tend by their consistency to show the guilt of the accused,” while somewhat confused, does not contain an expression or intimation of opinion by the court as to what was proved, or as to the guilt of the accused, and, when taken in connection with its context, could not have been so understood by the jury.

2. The evidence relied on to convict the defendant of simple larceny was largely circumstantial. The cow which he was charged with stealing was found tied on or near his premises, and near other cows belonging to him. In his statement at the trial he claimed that he found this cow among his cows, and that she was “rearing around and cutting up,” and that he tied her apart from his cows with a piece of line, to keep her from hurting one of his cows that was heavy with calf, and also to prevent her from getting into his oats. Under this contention of the defendant it was error for the court to refuse to give a timely written request to charge section 2001 of the Civil Code of 1910, which is as follows: “Any person may, upon his own freehold or the highway thereto, or being in charge of one, and not elsewhere, take up all estrays of animals of a domestic or useful nature either for labor or flesh.” Judgment reversed.

Indictment for larceny of cow; from Bibb superior court— Judge Mathews. February 19, 1916.

W. A. McClellan, for plaintiff in error. John P. Boss, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 375, 18 Ga. App. 286, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samples-v-state-gactapp-1916.