Bieber v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
Criminal law. Accessory after the fact. New trial. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. January Term, 1871. The plaintiff in error was tried upon an indictment, of which the following is the only portion material to be inserted : “ GEORGIA — Chatham County : The grand jurors selected, chosen and sworn, for the county of Chatham, to-wit: ....................., in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse Henry Bieber, of the county of Chatham,…
Read the full summary
Criminal law. Accessory after the fact. New trial. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. January Term, 1871. The plaintiff in error was tried upon an indictment, of which the following is the only portion material to be inserted : “ GEORGIA — Chatham County : The grand jurors selected, chosen and sworn, for the county of Chatham, to-wit: ....................., in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse Henry Bieber, of the county of Chatham, and State of Georgia, aforesaid, with the offense of being an accessory after the fact, in buying and receiving stolen…
1Opinion of the Court
Warner, Chief Justice.
The defendant was indicted as an accessory after the fact in buying and receiving stolen goods and chattels, under the 4420th section of the Code. On the trial of the case, the defendant was found guilty, and a motion was made for a new trial, on the several grounds specified in the record, which motion was overruled by the Court, and the defendant excepted.
If the defendant had been indicted for a misdemeanor, as an accessory after the fact, under the 4243d section of the Code, we will not say that the objection urged by the defendant’s counsel would not have been well…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ford v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- State v. GordonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Licette v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Smiley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919