Case Name: William Brown et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1871-07
Citations: 44 Ga. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Brown et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
William Brown et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
1. Hog stealing is not such an offense as can be settled in 4609th section of the Revised Code.
2. In a charge of larceny, the property stolen was described as “ one black pig, white listed ; and one white pig, with a blue rump ; both without ear marks; and, together, of the value of $2 00, the property of James Drake:”
Held, That this description is sufficient.
Criminal Law. Before Judge Harvey. Oglethorpe Superior Court. April Term, 1871.
These defendants were indicted in the District Court for hog stealing. The animals were described in the indictment as being “the personal goods of William Agee, to-wit: one black pig, white listed, one white pig, with blue rump ; said pigs having no ear marks, of the value of two dollars.” The defendants pleaded that they had settled the case with Agee before prosecution. This plea was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained. The defendants were convicted. They moved an arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the description of the stolen property was insufficient. This motion was overruled. Oertiorari, on the grounds that the Court erred in said rulings, was dismissed, and the judgment affirmed. This is assigned as error.
John C. Reed, for plaintiffs in error.
H. T. Morton, District Attorney ; J. D. Matthews, for the State.
As to settlement, R. Code, secs. 4609,4336, 2790, 199; Cobb’s New Digest, 864. As to description, Revised Code, sections 4332, 4334. 1 Gr. on Ev., section 440 ; Ch. Cr. L., section 236: 10 Ga. R., 56 ; Taylor vs. State, this term.

Opinion:
McCay, Judge.
I. Larceny, even of hogs, was, by section 105, of the old Code, punishable by fine and imprisoment. It may • be punished by fine and imprisonment, under the Act of 1865, providing a general punishment for all misdemeanors. This offense was not, therefore, one that could be settled under section 4609 of the Code. There are other objections to this plea of settlement, but this is sufficient.
2. The description of a thing must be always one of degree. It would be an encouragement to crime to require every imaginable mark of identity to be mentioned. Certainty to a reasonable intent is all the law requires.
In this case, the animal is called a pig, a designation which indicates, to some extent, its age and size. Its color is given, and that it had a white list around the neck. It is added, that it was not marked. The sex is not mentioned, but as was well said in the argument, the sex of a pig is not apt to be noticed. We think the description sufficient. The Code does not require the sex to be stated, as in the larceny of a horse. We think the size, age, color, prominent flesh mark, the statement that there was no ear mark, and that both pigs, together, were worth $2 00, is sufficient.
Judgment affirmed.