Adams v. State

105 S.E. 248, 25 Ga. App. 765, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 199
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Adams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ga. App. 252
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 9, 1920·No. 11750·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The sufficiency of the description of the hogs alleged to have been stolen was brought in question by demurrer to the indictment, in which they were described as “ one red and black spotted sow hog of value $10, one white and black spotted sow hog of value $10, one red and black spotted male hog of value $10, one dark red male hog of value $10, and two white and black spotted sow hogs, of value of $10 each; all of the value of sixty and no/100 dollars and of the personal goods of O. A. Allen.” Under the ruling in Garrett v. State, 21 Ga. App. 801 (1) (93 S. E. 513), and the cases therein cited, the . court did not err in overruling the demurrer.

'2. There is no merit in any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial. There was some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Adams v. State, 105 S.E. 248, 25 Ga. App. 765, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

105 S.E. 248 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Levister v. State
93 S.E. 513 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Garrett v. State
95 S.E. 301 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)