Allen v. State

68 S.E. 1009, 8 Ga. App. 284, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 132
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 20, 1910·No. 2765·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Under the undisputed evidence, the error of the court in not limiting the jury to a consideration of sales by the defendant within the two years preceding the indictment was not harmful to the defendant, and therefore affords no ground for a new trial.

2. The assignment of error complaining that the judge “failed to charge the jury upon the law of gifts and sales” is too general and indefinite for consideration.

3. The evidence, while not wholly satisfactory, is sufficient to authorize the conviction of the defendant; and the verdict being approved by the trial judge, the finding of the jury can not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Allen v. State, 68 S.E. 1009, 8 Ga. App. 284, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

68 S.E. 1009 (Allen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holloway v. State
114 S.E.2d 538 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Moultrie v. State
92 S.E.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Spinks v. Jenkins
43 S.E.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Lancaster v. State
187 S.E. 903 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Evans v. Caldwell
184 S.E. 440 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Rice v. State
177 S.E. 278 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Trammell v. Shirley
145 S.E. 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Cook v. State
79 S.E. 87 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)