44 Ga. 300 | Ga. | 1871
I. Larceny, even of hogs, was, by section 105, of the old
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.