Opinion
33291.
DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1950.
Violating liquor law; from Clayton Superior Court — Judge Guess. July 14, 1950.
Lester Dickson, for plaintiff in error.
Roy Leathers, Solicitor-General, contra.
1. "In this State the difference between an indictment and a special presentment has been abolished, with respect to the requirements of law in regard to trials under them, a mere technical distinction remaining that in an indictment the accusation is presented by a prosecutor, and in a special presentment it is preferred by the grand jury without a prosecutor. Groves v. State, 73 Ga. 205." Barlow v. State, 127 Ga. 58, 60 ( 56 S.E. 131). "An indictment not signed by the solicitor-general is not subject to attack by the accused because not so signed. Sufficient authentication of a paper, as an indictment by the grand jury, may be made by an entry thereon of the words "`True Bill,' signed by the foreman of that body." White v. State, 27 Ga. App. 769 ( 109 S.E. 917). "It would seem that the real entry which is necessary to give the paper authenticity as an indictment by the grand jury is the indorsement of that action upon the paper, signed by the foreman of that body." Williams v. State, 107 Ga. 721, 724 ( 33 S.E. 648). Accordingly, where the grand jury returns a "`True Bill' signed by the foreman of that body," it is not ground for dismissal that the same was not signed by the solicitor-general, and the court here properly overruled the demurrer, motion to quash the indictment, and motion in arrest of judgment, all based on this ground. See also Hillman v. State, 67 Ga. App. 292 (1) ( 20 S.E.2d 91).
2. The verdict is supported by the evidence and, having the approval of the trial court, will not be disturbed by this court.
Judgment affirmed. MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.
DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1950.
James Ellison was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Clayton County for the offense of manufacturing liquor. The evidence authorized the jury to find that certain officers located a still in a hollow about five hundred yards from the home of the defendant's mother; that at the time they arrived there the still was in operation and a fifty-gallon barrel was already full; that there were three white people at the location of the still; that all three ran when they observed the officers approaching and two of them escaped; that the defendant was in the still yard and, when first observed, was stooping over near an oil burner with which the apparatus was fired, with a bucket in his hand, pouring water on the worm; that when apprehended he stated to the officers in substance that one of the burners had "played out" and he had gotten another one to replace it, otherwise they would have finished the run before the arrival of the officers. Evidence was also introduced to the effect that there was found at the site of this still a large piece of steel used over the front of the furnace which was not destroyed at that time, and which was identified as the same piece of metal found subsequently at another still where the same defendant was later apprehended. (See Ellison v. State, 81 Ga. App. 550, 59 S.E. 405). The defendant in his statement contended that he had no connection with the still but had merely gone down to see it, and had become interested in examining the type of burner with which it was being operated.