
    Moseley vs. The State of Georgia.
    1. Where a motion was made for a continuance on account of the absence of a witness, by whom the accused expected to prove that he was hired to haul the cotton which he was charged with having stolen, and the' person who subpoenaed the witness testified that the latter stated that she knew nothing about the matter, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance.
    2. In order for the striking of a plea in abatement to furnish a ground for reversal, it must affirmatively appear that such plea was filed before arraignment; otherwise it will be presumed that the judgment of the court was right, and that the plea was filed after arraignment.
    3. Where an indictment for stealing cotton was in the usual form of an indictment for simple larceny, it was not demurrable because it did not allege that the cotton was stolen, taken and carried away from a place where it was stored. The words, “from any place where the same may be stored,” simply mean any place where the same may have been placed or located. The intention of the act of 1881 (Acts 1880-1, p. 150) was merely to increase the penalty for stealing baled cotton, and to make it a felony instead of a misdemeanor. Code, §4419(a).
    October 21, 1884.
   Blandeord, Justice.  