Case Name: Smith vs. The State of Georgia
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1879-02
Citations: 62 Ga. 663
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith vs. The State of Georgia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Smith vs. The State of Georgia.
Where the defendant was found in possession of goods recently stolen fiom a tailor’s shop, and made contradictory statements of the manner by which he got them, and was also'in possession of a key freshly filed down so as to fit the door of the shop exactly, and where the goods stolen were in the shop at dusk when the tailor locked the door, and when the tailor returned about sunrise the next morning the goods were gone, and no window or other mode of access to the shop was opened or broken into, so that the thief must have entered at the door;
Held, that the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict for burglary in the night-time, and that such verdict is not contrary to law.
Criminal law. New trial. Before Judge Hillyer. Fulton Superior Court. September Term, 1878.
The facts set out in the head-note and opinion sufficiently report this case.
Gartrell & Wright, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Hill, solicitor-general; Howard Yan Epps, for the state.

Opinion:
Jackson, Justice.
The sole question made in this record is whether the ver diet is supported by the evidence. The defendant was found with the goods stolen in his possession — contradictory statements were made about them — the pantaloons taken from the shop were worn by him inconsistently with his explanation in respect to the manner in which he obtained them, he had a key filed down freshly, which fitted the door of the store from which the goods were taken, this door was locked at dusk and opened next morning about sunrise — and in accordance with the ruling in 59 Ga., 456, Brown vs. The State, and in 60 Ga., 445, Williams et al. vs. The State, it appears that the evidence makes a case in law which supports the verdict. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.