
    10988.
    Daniel v. The State.
    Decided December 9, 1919.
    Rehearing denied January 6, 1920.
    Indictment for burglary; from Cobb superior court—Judge Morris. October 6, 1919.
    Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
    The indictment charged that the accused broke and entered a certain storehouse and took and carried away certain automobile tires and tubes, with intent to steal them. A number of specific objections to the description of the articles alleged to have been taken were made by demurrer to the indictment, and it tvas contended that because of insufficiency in the respects stated the indictment was fatally defective. The property was described as follows: “ten Lee Automobile tires, non-skid and plain tread, of various and sundry dimensions, to wit, 30x3% inches, 31x4 inches, 34x4 inches, said automobile tires being of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, and six Lee Automobile inner tubes and rubber tires, the same being then and there the property of . . Ealph W. Northcutt, and being then and there in said storehouse contained and stored.”
    
      C. M. Dobbs, Abbott & Wallace, Glay & Giles, for plaintiff in error.
    
      John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general, William Butt, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. The court properly overruled the demurrer to the indictment. See, in this connection, Blackmon v. State, 24 Ga. App. 384 (100 S. E. 730).

2. Conceding, but not deciding, that the court erred in refusing to charge section 1062 of the Penal Code of 1910, and in failing to instruct the jury that if they found the defendant guilty of burglary they had a right to recommend that he be punished as for a misdemeanor, this error was evidently harmless, since the jury in their verdict (under the indeterminate sentence act approved August 18, 1919, Ga. L. 1919, p. 387), fixed the minimum punishment of the defendant at ten years in the penitentiary when they could have fixed it at one year only. This verdict clearly shows that even if the requested charge had been given, the jury would not have recommended a misdemeanor punishment for the defendant.

3. The other special grounds of the motion for a new trial are not argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and are treated as abandoned.

4. The verdict amply authorized, if it did not demand, the defendant’s conviction of the offense charged, and the court did not err in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.  