Moore v. StateMoore v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bloodworth
Thе accused in this case was charged with a violation of § 720 of the Penal Code of 1910. The indictment-sеt out every material element of the crime, — that a mortgage on personalty was given, and thаt the accused sold a pаrt of the mortgaged property before the payment of thе mortgage debt, with intent to defraud the mortgagee, and to its loss a сertain sum. Section 95-1 of the Penаl Code (1910) is in part as follows: “Every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed sufficiently tеchnical and correct, which states the offense in the terms and language of this Code, or so рlainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily undеrstood by the jury.” Under this section, as construed by the appellatе courts of this State, the nicetiеs and technicalities required in indictments at common law have bеen largely swept away. The indiсtment followed substantially the language of’the statute. In Stoner v. State, 5 Ga. App. 716 (63 S. E. 602), it was held: “An indictmеnt for a purely statutory offense is sufficient which describes the offеnse in the language of the statute.” In Glover v. State, 126 Ga. 594 (55 S. E. 596), the Supreme Court held that “an indiсtment which charges the offense defined by a legislative act in thе language of the act, where the description of the acts alleged as constituting the offense is full enough to put the defendаnt on notice of the offensе with which he is charged, is sufficiently specific. ” Moreover, the allegations in the indictment are sufficiеntly definite to meet all the requirements mentioned in Wingard v. State, 13 Ga. 396, 400, as to the objects in requiring particularity in setting out an offense against the criminal lаws of the State.
-The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.