Suddeth v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Suddeth v. State

101 S.E. 763, 24 Ga. App. 591, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 951

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1919

Docket10885

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 763 (Suddeth 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

Suddeth v. State, 101 S.E. 763, 24 Ga. App. 591, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 951 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. “Theft of articles from a warehouse platform, used for the purpose of carrying goods into the warehouse and removing them therefrom, as well as for the temporary deposit of goods, is larceny from the house.” Wilson v. State, 9 Ga. App. 297 (70 S. E. 1125). The exception to the charge of the court is without merit.

2. The evidence, though weak on the question of intent, authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the .motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., eoneur.

The court charged the jury that “if articles are stolen from a warehouse or depot platform, as alleged in this indictment, and if such a platform is attached to the warehouse and part of the appurtenances belonging to that warehouse, and is used for the purpose of carrying goods into and from such warehouse or depot for the storage or temporary deposit of freight (all of which the jury shall determine from the evidence in the case), the offense would be larceny from the house.” In the motion for a new trial it was alleged that the court erred in so charging.

G. Y. Harrell, for plaintiff in error. O. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Luke, J.

1. “Theft of articles from a warehouse platform, used for the purpose of carrying goods into the warehouse and removing them therefrom, as well as for the temporary deposit of goods, is larceny from the house.” Wilson v. State, 9 Ga. App. 297 (70 S. E. 1125). The exception to the charge of the court is without merit.

2. The evidence, though weak on the question of intent, authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the .motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., eoneur.

The court charged the jury that “if articles are stolen from a warehouse or depot platform, as alleged in this indictment, and if such a platform is attached to the warehouse and part of the appurtenances belonging to that warehouse, and is used for the purpose of carrying goods into and from such warehouse or depot for the storage or temporary deposit of freight (all of which the jury shall determine from the evidence in the case), the offense would be larceny from the house.” In the motion for a new trial it was alleged that the court erred in so charging.

G. Y. Harrell, for plaintiff in error. O. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 763, 24 Ga. App. 591, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suddeth-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack