Case Name: MONCRIEF v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1896-08-10
Citations: 99 Ga. 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: MONCRIEF v. THE STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 295–297

Head Matter:
MONCRIEF v. THE STATE.
August 10, 1896.
Indictment for burglary. Before Judge Harris. Cow-eta superior court. September term, 1895.
Lee Monicrief was indicted for breaking and entering tbe carriage-bouse .of J. "W". Arnold and stealing therefrom a set of buggy harness, a saddle and a buggy rug. He was found guilty, and his motion for a new trial was overruled. The motion was upon the grounds that the verdict waB contrary to law and evidence; and that the court erred:
“In allowing and permitting evidence of Byron Dearing that defendant and himself had placed a gun in the fodder loft, which was not connected with the crime charged.” It is not stated in this ground that this evidence was ob jected to. There was evidence that the harness stolen was found in the same loft in which, according to the evidence of Dearing, defendant and himself had placed a gun they had stolen. This fodder loft belonged to the father of the defendant. There was evidence for the State, that the defendant kept his horse in a separate stable from his f ather’s, there being three stables on bis father’s lot, and kept his fodder np above, and that it was in this fodder loft that the harness was found. Tor the defense there was evidence that the fodder loft belonged to the father of defendant; that -others besides defendant had access to it; that it was not kept locked, there was no lock to it; that the fodder and corn in it belonged to defendant’s father, etc.

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.
1. Alleged error in admitting evidence cannot be considered by this court when the evidence objected to is not set out and the record does not disclose what ground or grounds of objection were mad© to it when offered at the trial.
2. Where in a trial for burglary the State insisted thait a certain house (in which goods alleged to have been taken from the burglarized premises were found) was in the possession of the accused, and there was evidence tending to show that his possession of such house was shared with another or others, 'there was no .error in charging in substance that the possession of that house could not be treated as that of the accused, unless his possession and occupation of the same was exclusive and not enjoyed by other parties jointly with him; nor in' charging that if the accused did in fact have possession with others, this fact could be considered in connection with all the other evidence in passing upon the question of h.is guilt or innocence.
3. There was no error at the trial, and there being evidence sufficient to warrant the conviction, the verdict of guilty, after its approval by the trial judge, Should not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.