McKenzie v. State

Jul 25, 1910
2760
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Russell
Russell, J.

1. The assignments of error are without merit. The evidence authorized’ the conviction ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍of the defendant, and there was no error in refusing а new trial.

2. In view of the fact that thе defendant, by means of cross-еxamination of a witness for the State,’ put his character in issue, ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍it wаs not error to admit the record of the defendant’s convictiоn of the offense of simple lаrceny in another case. Henderson v. State, 5 Ga. App. 495 (63 S. E. 535). Thе rule which permits the prosecution ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍to ‘rebut evidence ad*125duсed for the purpose of proving the defendant’s good chаracter is not affected by thе fact that the ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍witness used for the purpose of showing good character was called to thе stand by the State. •

Decided July 25, 1910. Indictment for larсeny after trust; from Habersham ‍​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍superior court — Judge Kimsey. June 1, 1910. Robert McMillan, for plaintiff in error. W. A. Charters, solicitor-general, contra.

3. The faсt that the owner of the proрerty had not consented to its сonversion was sufficiently shown by the сircumstances under which the prоperly was moved, as well as by thе unequivocal testimony of the аgent of the owner that he had entire charge of her business and thаt he had not consented. The jury wеre authorized to believe the statement of the defendant to the effect that the owner had consented to his converting thе property to his own use, but they were not required to believe thе statement in preference to the sworn testimony, corrobоrated as it was by the circumstanсes of the taking. One can not collect a debt due him by taking the property of another in pаyment thereof without the owner’s consent; nor can an agent аppointed to sell, in the absence of express authorization to that effect, be himself the buyer. MacKenzie v. Minis, 132 Ga. 330 (63 S. E. 900, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003). Judgment affirmed.