Acker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Acker v. State

72 Ga. App. 789

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 8, 1945

Docket30962

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Ga. App. 789 (Acker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acker v. State, 72 Ga. App. 789 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The evidence amply authorized the defendant’s conviction of the offense charged (making whisky).

2. The two excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for new trial, when considered in the light of the charge as a whole and the facts of the case, show no prejudicial error, if error at all.

3. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. M. G. Hicks, Mrs. Charles Camp, for plaintiff in error. Henderson Lanham, solicitor-general, Chastine Parker, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, C. J.

1. The evidence amply authorized the defendant’s conviction of the offense charged (making whisky).

2. The two excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for new trial, when considered in the light of the charge as a whole and the facts of the case, show no prejudicial error, if error at all.

3. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. M. G. Hicks, Mrs. Charles Camp, for plaintiff in error. Henderson Lanham, solicitor-general, Chastine Parker, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ga. App. 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acker-v-state-gactapp-1945.