Henley v. State

Broyles, 0. J.,

dissenting. The averment in tbe indictment that the money, fraudulently obtained by the defendants, “was the property of J. D. Williman,” was unnecessary and mere surplusage, since it was “not descriptive of any material element of the crime, and, therefore, it was not incumbent upon tlie State to prove ity ‘This case does not come within the rule that an immaterial description of a material fact must be proved, but, place being unimportant, it was rather an instance of an. immaterial description of an immaterial fact See Hall v. State, 120 Ga. 142, 144 (47 S. E. 519).” Howell…