Williams v. State
Williams v. State, 86 S.E. 413 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)
Summary
Accusation of larceny; from city court of Irwin county — Judge Newbern. March 27, 1915.
The accusation charged Samuel Williams with the larceny of a pair of leather, gun-metal, men’s' shoes, of the value of $2, the property of Sam Henderson. The only testimony introduced at the trial was that of A. L. Tucker, who testified as follows: “I know the defendant, Sam Williams. Sam Henderson complained to me that he had missed some shoes; they were gun-metal leather men’s shoes. I went to this boy’s house and arrested him, and I asked him where the shoes were that he stole, and he told me that these were the ones which he was putting on. He told me they were Sam Henderson’s shoes. They were gun-metal leather shoes, and they were worth $2. Sam Henderson lives on Bill Tankersley’s place in Irwin county; and defendant said he got the shoes from Sam Henderson’s house on Mr. Bill Tankersley’s place. Sam Williams told Sam Henderson that he would pay him for the shoes. The defendant gave the shoes back to Sam Henderson, saying, ‘Here are your shoes.’” The defendant’s statement was as follows: “Sam Henderson pawned me a pair of shoes for fifty cents. Mr. Tucker came and arrested me and asked me where Sam’s shoes were. I told him that the ones I had on was them. I told Sam Henderson in Mr. Tucker’s presence to pay me back my money and he could have the shoes.”
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Broyles, J.
The corpus delicti not having been proved, the conviction of the defendant was contrary to law. Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.