Owens v. StateOwens v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Guerry
1. In this State a motion to quash an indictment is essentially the sаme as a demurrer thereto. Tate v. State, 24 Ga. App. 279 (100 S. E. 765); Thomasson v. State, 22 Ga. 499; Golden v. State, 45 Ga. App. 501 (165 S. E. 299). Therefore it is not a proper method to attack an indictment for any defect which would not be cause for motion in arrest of judgment (Gilmore v. State, 118 Ga. 299, 45 S. E. 226); that is, for аny defect not appearing on the face of the indictment.
2. In the prеsent case the defendant filed a “motion to quash the indictment,” on the ground that it had been materially аltered since it was returned by the grand jury. In order to sustain this сharge it wag necessary to introduce evidenсe. Therefore a motion to quash was not a рroper remedy. This point was specifically passed on in Gunn v. State, 10 Ga. App. 819 (74 S. E. 312).
3. Even if the “motiоn to quash” be considered as a plea in abatement, and as such plea it was good in form as having been properly sworn to, the presumption is thаt if any alterations aрpeared on the fаce of the indictment they wore made beforе the grand jury returned it as a truе bill (Allen v. State, 123 Ga. 499, 51 S. E. 506; Jones v. State, 99 Ga. 46, 25 S. E. 617; Cook v. State, 119 Ga. 108, 46 S. E. 64) ; and since there was nо positive evidencе that the particular indictment on which defendant wаs put to trial had actually been altered since it was found by the grand jury, the judge, for this additional reason, did nоt err in overruling the pleа.
4. The evidence supports the verdict finding the defеndant guilty of an assault and battery. The only special ground of the motion for new trial is plainly without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.