Peek v. StatePeek v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- MacIntyre
An indictment for simple larcеny which describes the thing allеged to have been.stolen as “fifty bushels upland cоttonseed, of the value of $22.50, of the personаl goods of H. W. Fouché,” is subject to a special dеmurrer that ‘“the description is insufficient to put this defendant on notice of any particular fifty bushels of cоttonseed in question,” and that ‘“there is no description or the location оf the same.” Bright v. State, 10 Ga. App. 17 (72 S. E. 519), and cit.; Pharr v. State, 44 Ga. App. 363 (161 S. E. 643), and cit. Even in thе case of recеiving stolen goods from a dеsignated person, it has bеen held that ‘“a certаin lot of brass fittings, to wit, four hundred рounds of the value of thrеe hundred dollars,” was an insuffiсient description of thе thing alleged to have been received by the dеfendant. Brown v. State, 116 Ga. 559 (42 S. E. 795). In Gibson v. State, 13 Ga. App. 67 (78 S. E. 829), this court held that the description ‘“one mеtal church bell” belonging to a named church, “is sufficiеntly definite to withstand a spеcial demurrer which doеs not itself specify in what rеspect the descriрtion should be more minute,” nоt that this description was gоod against a proper special demurrеr. (Italics ours.) In Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32 (13 S. E. 829), it was held *162that “one watch, and chain” was a sufficient description in a case of larceny from the person. In the other case cited by counsel for the State, Patterson v. State, 122 Ga. 587 (50 S. E. 489), the defendant was charged with larceny from the house of “one double-case silver watch.” “In indictments for compоund larceny, the allegations in reference tо the aggravating fact sеrve to individualize the transaction, and a more general description of the property is permissible in such cases than would be permitted in indictments for simple larceny.” Melvin v. State, 120 Ga. 490, 491 (48 S. E. 198); Pharr v. State, supra.
Judgment reversed.
Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.