Arnold v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. State

187 S.E. 597, 54 Ga. App. 230, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1936

Docket25615

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 597 (Arnold 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

Arnold v. State, 187 S.E. 597, 54 Ga. App. 230, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The facts of this case are so similar to those in Hughes v. State, 52 Ga. App. 199 (182 S. E. 807), that we are constrained to hold that they support the judgment finding the defendant guilty on both counts of the accusation; the first, charging him with carrying on a lottery known as a number game in violation of the Code, § 26-6502, and the second charging that he sold, or offered for sale, “certain numbers representing a chance in a lottery,” in violation of § 26-6501. We [231]*231therefore hold that the judge did not err in overruling the certiorari assigning error on said judgment.

Decided September 15, 1936. Swift Tyler Jr., George F. Fielding, Ernest Watts, for plaintiff in error. John 8. McClelland, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The facts of this case are so similar to those in Hughes v. State, 52 Ga. App. 199 (182 S. E. 807), that we are constrained to hold that they support the judgment finding the defendant guilty on both counts of the accusation; the first, charging him with carrying on a lottery known as a number game in violation of the Code, § 26-6502, and the second charging that he sold, or offered for sale, “certain numbers representing a chance in a lottery,” in violation of § 26-6501. We [231]*231therefore hold that the judge did not err in overruling the certiorari assigning error on said judgment.

Decided September 15, 1936. Swift Tyler Jr., George F. Fielding, Ernest Watts, for plaintiff in error. John 8. McClelland, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 597, 54 Ga. App. 230, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack