Harris v. StateHarris v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Broyles
1. The clerical error in the datе of filing the bill of exceptions in the office of the clerk of the trial court having been corrеcted by said clerk, and it now aрpearing from the record thаt the bill of excep*320tions was filеd in the office of said clerk within fifteen days of its certification by the judge, this court has jurisdiction of the сase and the writ of error will not be dismissed. Henderson v. Willis, 160 Ga. 638 (128 S. E. 807). Credit Clearing House v. Wheeland Co., 18 Ga. App. 475 (89 S. E. 634).
2. Where an indictment for burglary alleges, as the purpose оf the breaking, the intent to commit a larceny, and where it further alleges, for the purpose of illustrаting the intent to steal at the time оf the breaking and entering, an actual stealing after the breaking and entering, no description, value, or ownership of any goods intended to be stolen, or actuаlly stolen after the breaking and еntering, need be alleged. Boyd v. State, 4 Ga. App. 273 (61 S. E. 134); Berry v. State, 124 Ga. 825 (53 S. E. 316). See, also, in this connection, Stokes v. State, 84 Ga. 258 (10 S. E. 740) ; Lanier v. State, 76 Ga. 304(1-a). Undеr the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant ease the special demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled.
3. However, where the accused hаs been convicted of larceny from the house on such an indiсtment, the verdict can not be sustаined when the evidence failed to show the ownership of the property alleged to havе been stolen, and that the property was of some value. Hawkins v. State, 95 Ga. 458 (20 S. E. 217); Lane v. State, 113 Ga. 1040 (39 S. E. 463) ; Portwood v. State, 124 Ga. 783 (53 S. E. 99). In the instant casе there was no proof that the goods alleged to have bеen stolen were of any value. Therefore the verdict was withоut evidence to support it, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.
4. A new trial being required under thе ruling made in paragraph 3 abоve, the special grounds of the motion for a new trial (comрlaining of alleged errors that will nоt probably recur upon another trial) are not passed upon.
Judgment reversed.
MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.