Glass v. State

Glass v. State, 46 S.E. 435 (Ga. 1904)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 12, 1904
Judges: Lamar
Citations: 46 S.E. 435119 Ga. 2991904 Ga. LEXIS 810

Headnotes

1. In prosecutions in a city court the acc usation may be more restricted, but can not be broader, than the affidavit on which it is based. 2. Where an affidavit charges the commission of a specific act, the accusation must conform thereto. 8. As the greater includes the less, if the affidavit is general, the accusation may charge a specific criminal act included within the offense named in the affidavit.

Summary

Accusation of gaming. Before Judge Hollingsworth. City court of Fayetteville. October 21, 1903.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lamar

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lamar, J.

Glass was prosecuted in the city court of Fayetteville, for a misdemeanor. The affidavit charged him with the offense of “ gaming.” The accusation based thereon charged that ha “ did . . play and bet for money and other things of value, at a game of seven-up, skin, and other games played with cards.” The defendant demurred on the ground that the accusation did not follow the affidavit, in that it covered matters other than those contained therein. On the authority of Dickson v. State, 62 Ga. 588 , Brown v. State, 109 Ga. 572 , and Williams v. State, 107 Ga. 693 , the judge properly overruled the demurrer. If the affidavit had charged the defendant with playing “seven-up,” the defendant could not have been put on trial for playing at any other game, or for gaming generally. Blake v. State, 112 Ga. 537 . But where the affidavit sets out that the defendant was guilty of the general offense of gaming, the accusation can allege that he was guilty of any specific act included within the definition. The accusation can not be broader than the affidavit, but, as the greater includes the less, if the affidavit is general, the accusation can be specific.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts10

Relies on it most ⓘ

Rowles v. State239 S.E.2d 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
Brown v. State62 S.E.2d 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950)
Williams v. State111 Ga. App. 588 (1965)
Williams v. State142 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Hunter v. State61 S.E. 1130 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908)
Pye v. Gillis71 S.E. 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911)

Most recent

Daniel v. State314 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)
McCann v. State279 S.E.2d 499 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Rowles v. State239 S.E.2d 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
Williams v. State142 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Williams v. State111 Ga. App. 588 (1965)
Lamb v. State136 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Brown v. State, 34 S.E. 1031 (Ga. 1900)	31
	Williams v. State, 33 S.E. 641 (Ga. 1899)	25
	Dickson v. State, 62 Ga. 583 (1879)	21
	Blake v. State, 37 S.E. 870 (Ga. 1901)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list