Sharp v. State

17 Ga. 290
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1855·No. No. 54·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the. Court.

Sensing, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The indictment stated the offence in the terms and language of the Code, or so plainly that the nature 'of the offence might be easily understood by the Jury; and that is all that the law requires. (The Code, Cobb’s Dig. 818, 833.)

It is a general principle of law, that the party that alleges the affirmative of a proposition, especially if the proposition concern something which must be peculiarly within his knowledge, must prove the proposition.

[2.] The case of one who, by pleading not guilty to a charge of retailing without license, alleges that he retailed with license, is not an exception to the general rule. (Apothecaries’ Company vs. Bentley, Ry. & Mood. 159. See 1 Starkie on Ev. 362, and cases cited. 1 Green. Ev. Sec. 79, and cases cited.)

[292] In accordance with this principle was the charge of the Court. That charge was therefore right.

So there should be a general affirmance.

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

Sharp v. State, 17 Ga. 290 (Ga. 1855).

17 Ga. 290 (Sharp v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blocker v. State
76 S.E. 784 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Bell v. State
137 S.W. 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Stoner v. State
63 S.E. 602 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)