Case ID: ga_48/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Trippe, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jane Carter and Amanda Meriwether, plaintiffs in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    Criminal Law — Venue—New Trial. — If the evidence contained in the record does not show where the offense was committed, of which a defendant is found guilty, and there be an assignment of error that the verdict was contrary to law, a new trial will be granted.
    Criminal law. Venue. Before Judge PIopicins. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1873.
    Plaintiffs in error were placed on trial for the offense of keeping a lewd house. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. A motion for á new trial was made upon the ground, amongst others, that the verdict was contrary to law. The brief of evidence fails to disclose where the offense was committed. The motion was overruled and plaintiffs in error excepted.
    Thrasher & Ti-irasi-ier, for plaintiffs in error.
    John T. GeEnn, Solicitor General, for the State.
    
      
       Criminal Law — -Venue—New Trial. — The holding announced in the headnote is adhered to in Jones v. State, 113 Ga. 272, 38 S. E. Rep. 851, where the principal case is cited. Also in Alexander v. State, 105 Ga. 834, 31 S. E. Rep. 754; Rooks v. State. 65 Ga. 332; Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 9, p. 636.
    
   Trippe, Judge.

The evidence in the record does not show that any offense was committed in the county of Fulton. The witness *said the house was-on the corner of Broad and Walton streets, without further defining the locality. It was necessary to prove in what county these streets are. Courts do not judicially take cognizance of such facts. It is proper to remark, that the Solicitor General stated that the omission to insert the county in the brief of the evidence was an oversight and not observed until the case was here. This is very probably true, but the record is all that can speak on that point. By it this Court and parties are bound.

Judgment reversed.