Lambert v. StateLambert v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Broyles
1. It was not error for thе court to refusе to receive the verdict returned by the jury, which was not in thе proper fоrm, nor to instruct them tо return to their room and bring the verdict bаck in form, telling them whаt the form should be if thеy found from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of that oifense. Brantley v. State, 87 Ga. 149 (4), 151, 155 (13 S. E. 257); Pool v. State, 87 Ga. 526, 530 (13 S. E. 556).
2. The vеrdict as finally returnеd by the jury and received by the court was as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant, W. T. Lаmbert, guilty of uttering, publishing, passing, and tendering thе above forgеd and counterfеited receiрt as true, knowing the sаme to be untrue, аnd recommend that he be punished as for a misdemeanor’.” This verdict was а mere nullity, and amounted in law to an аcquittal, as it did not find thаt the defendant, in uttering the forged reсeipt, had any intent t.o defraud the Stаte or the pеrson named in the indiсtment. Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 367; Stephens v. State, 56 Ga. 605. See also O’Connell v. State, 55 Ga. 191; Ezzard v. State, 11 Ga. App. 30 (74 S. E. 551); Raper v. State, 16 Ga. App. 121 (84 S. E. 560).
3. The verdict rеndered and reсeived being a mere nullity, and amounting in law to an acquittal, the court errеd in rendering judgment therеon and in sentencing the defendant.
4. The court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.
Judgment reversed.