
    William D. Barclay, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
    Where one is indicted for a misdemeanor under section 4600 of the Code, the gist of the offensé thereunder, being the sale or disposition of.property mortgaged, so as to defeat the rights of the mortgagee, and the property described in the mortgage is “ one bay mare mule
    
      Held, that parol evidence is inadmissible to show that there was a mistake in the description, and that the mortgage was intended to cover a bay horse mule, though the indictment alleged the mistake.
    Criminal law. Indictment. Evidence. Before Judge Hall. Monroe Superior Court. February Term, 1875.
    Reported in the opinion.
    Hammond & Berner, by W. T. Trippe, for plaintiff in error.
    T. B. Cabaniss, solicitor general, by Peeples & Howell, for the state.
   Jackson, Judge.

The defendant was indicted under section 4600 of the Code, for having sold and disposed of a certain bay horse mule after having mortgaged the said "mule to the mortgagee, with the intent to defraud the mortgagee. It was alleged in the indictment, that by mistake the mortgage described the-animal as a bay mare mule. Evidence was admitted to show the mistake, and the defendant was convicted. We think the court erred in admitting the evidence, and that the conviction was illegal. In a civil case, this evidence maybe admissible, but in a criminal case- we hold it is not, where the instrument in writing is the basis of the prosecution.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed.  