Case Name: GLASS v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1921-01-25
Citations: 26 Ga. App. 157
Docket Number: 11270
Parties: GLASS v. THE STATE.
Judges: Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 157–161

Head Matter:
11270.
GLASS v. THE STATE.
1. The description, of the automobile was sufficient in an indictment alleging that the accused “ did knowingly buy, steal, receive, conceal, and have in his possession a Ford touring model automobile of the value of $580.00 and the property of ” a named person, “ from which the motor number — the same being a mark of identification' — had been removed and altered for the purpose of concealment and misrepresenting the identity of said automobile.”
(a) In an indictment for the offense here charged (G-a. L. 19.18, p. 264) the description of the property need not be as particular as in cases of simple larceny. ■
2. The evidence against the accused is not altogether satisfactory, but this court can not hold that the verdict was unauthorized. There was no error that requires a new trial.
Decided January 25, 1921.
Indictment for felony; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphries. December 22, 1919.
Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
Westmoreland <& Smith, J. L. Anderson, B. J. Jordan, for plaintiff in error.
John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It was not error to overrule the demurrer to the indictment. The indictment charged the crime in the language of the statute and so plainly that the jury must have understood the nature of the offense charged. It was therefore not subject to demurrer. Penal Code (1910), § 954. The description of the automobile was sufficient. Adams v. State, 21 Ga. App. 152 (94 S. E. 82), and citations. This offense was a felony and of the nature of a " compound larceny," and in such a case the description of the stolen property need not be as particular as in cases of simple larceny. Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785 (54 S. E. 692).
The assignments of error in the motion for a new trial are not of such merit as to require a new trial. The evidence was conflicting and not altogether satisfactory, but we cannot say that there was no evidence authorizing the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.