Acker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Acker v. State

72 Ga. App. 789

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 8, 1945·No. 30962·Published

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.

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

Pincite

72 Ga. App. 789 (Acker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.