State v. CollensState v. Collens
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This case is before us on three bills of exceptions, viz:
1. A writtеn confession of the defendant was offered in evidence.
The prosecuting witness was put upon the stand to prove its verity and that it was made voluntarily. He was then interrogated by defendant’s counsel as to whether he hаd not stated to the brother of defendant that he had promised defendаnt if he would make the statement he should not be prosecuted. The witness hаving denied this, the brother was offered,as a witness to contradict him; but the cоurt refused to permit the brother to testify and admitted the confession— to whiсh refusal and admission the bill is taken.
Inasmuch as the testimony of the brother was afterwards received and went to the jury, we do not see how the defendant was harmed.
So far as the jury was concerned, he had the full benefit of it.
So far as the judge was concerned, as to whom alone its receрtion at that moment was of importance as influencing his ruling on the admission оf the confession, he informs us in the bill it would not have influenced his ruling; and that, notwithstanding thе brother’s testimony, he believed the evidence of the confession wаs admissible.
So inconsequential an error would not justify our interference.
2. The prosecution was for embezzlement of funds belonging to a corpоration chartered under the laws of Georgia—the Southern Express Company. The charter of the company, duly authenticated, had been
The judge refused this charge, holding that he had sufficiently stаted the law in his original charge wherein he had instructed the jury that “they must be cоnvinced of the corporate existence of the Southern Exprеss Co.”
We think it very clear that the special charge involved more thаn the law required; for it is well settled that, in matters of theft or embezzlement of property of corporations, it is sufficient to establish the defacto existencе of the corporation. 2 Bishop, Cr. Proc. § 752; People vs. Barrie,
In stating his rеfusal, the judge further said that the charter of Southern Express Co. had been admitted in evidence without objection and that it was in due form and that if it had not been, the court would not have permitted it to have been filed.”
This statemеnt was also objected to on the ground that it trenched on the provinсe of the jury to determine the sufficiency of the evidence. We do nоt understand such to have been the effect of the statement. It obviously rеfers merely to tlie/orm of the evidence as justifying its admission—not to its weight as proof.
Finally, cоunsel for defendant having suggested that the charter and accompаnying certificates had not been read to the jury, the court permitted thеm then to be read to the jury. This was objeeted to on the ground that the evidеnce liad been closed, the charge delivered and said reading wаs out of time and illegal. Had new evidence been received, the оbjection might have had force; but we can perceive no pоssible objection to reading to the jury documentary evidence which had been seasonably offered and received at any time. It gave thе jury no information to which they were not entitled, and even after retiring, the jury might have returned into court and requested that the evidence might be read over to them.
We discover no error in the ruling of the judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Rehearing re fused.