Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williams v. State

84 S.E. 494, 16 Ga. App. 34, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 491

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1915

Docket5582

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 494 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 84 S.E. 494, 16 Ga. App. 34, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The court erred in admitting in evidence, over the'defendant’s objection, a purchase-money note executed by the defendant, in which title to “one black horse mule about six years old, weighing about 1,000 pounds, and known as the Hill mule,” was retained in S. S. Brewer & Settle. The defendant was accused of fraudulently obtaining credit, by falsely and fraudulently representing to the prosecutor that he, the defendant, was the owner of a certain bay horse mule named Jim, about 6 years old, weighing about 900 or 1,000 pounds, and that there was no incumbrance on the said mule, which he thereupon mortgaged to the prosecutor. Even if parol evidence were admissible for the purpose of showing that the bay mule named Jim and the black mule known as the Hill mule were identical, an allegation that the bay mule named Jim was held by S. S. Brewer & Settle under a certain bill of sale could not be established by the introduction of a bill of sale of a black mule. The error in the admission of this irrelevant testimony, over timely objection to its irrelevancy, must be presumed to have been prejudicial to the accused, and upon this ground alone, in the state of the record, a new trial should have been granted.

2. The court properly allowed the accusation to be amended, and the amendment relates back to the time of filing the original accusation. The remaining assignments of error do not appear to be meritorious. '

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The court erred in admitting in evidence, over the'defendant’s objection, a purchase-money note executed by the defendant, in which title to “one black horse mule about six years old, weighing about 1,000 pounds, and known as the Hill mule,” was retained in S. S. Brewer & Settle. The defendant was accused of fraudulently obtaining credit, by falsely and fraudulently representing to the prosecutor that he, the defendant, was the owner of a certain bay horse mule named Jim, about 6 years old, weighing about 900 or 1,000 pounds, and that there was no incumbrance on the said mule, which he thereupon mortgaged to the prosecutor. Even if parol evidence were admissible for the purpose of showing that the bay mule named Jim and the black mule known as the Hill mule were identical, an allegation that the bay mule named Jim was held by S. S. Brewer & Settle under a certain bill of sale could not be established by the introduction of a bill of sale of a black mule. The error in the admission of this irrelevant testimony, over timely objection to its irrelevancy, must be presumed to have been prejudicial to the accused, and upon this ground alone, in the state of the record, a new trial should have been granted.

2. The court properly allowed the accusation to be amended, and the amendment relates back to the time of filing the original accusation. The remaining assignments of error do not appear to be meritorious. '

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 494, 16 Ga. App. 34, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack