Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HILL v. THE STATE.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

1. In the indictment for burglary in this case the ownership of the place burglarized was laid in a name (McCrory Corporation) which imported a corporation. The presumption was that it was a corporation, and in the absence of affirmative proof by accused that no such corporation existed it was not necessary for the State to prove the fact of incorporation. See Crawford v. State, 68 Ga. 822; Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212, 221 ( 41 S.E. 709); Alsobrook v. State, 126 Ga. 100, 102 ( 54 S.E. 805); Ager v. State, 2 Ga. App. 158 (1) ( 58 S.E. 374); Vaughn v. State, 17 Ga. App. 268 (1) ( 86 S.E. 461); Hammontree v. State, 25 Ga. App. 544 (1) ( 103 S.E. 738); Hornsby v. State, 49 Ga. App. 305 (1) ( 175 S.E. 400); King v. State, 83 Ga. App. 175 (b) ( 63 S.E.2d 292); Raptis v. State, 92 Ga. App. 485, 487 (2) ( 88 S.E.2d 731); Bush v. State, 117 Ga. App. 310 (3) ( 160 S.E.2d 456).

2. It was not error to admit testimony that the place burglarized was owned by McCrory Corporation over objection that "The corporate charter would certainly be the highest and best evidence."

Judgment affirmed. Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED APRIL 2, 1968 — DECIDED APRIL 12, 1968 — REHEARING DENIED MAY 1, 1968 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HILL v. STATE
(Apr 12, 1968)