Bailey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. State

98 S.E. 89, 23 Ga. App. 146, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 12

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 9, 1919

Docket10135

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 S.E. 89 (Bailey 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

Bailey v. State, 98 S.E. 89, 23 Ga. App. 146, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. It was not error for the judge in his charge to remind the jury of the oath they had taken, that they would well and truly try the case, and to read the oath to them. The statement of the court, in this connection, that the jury had “sworn to try the case ‘according to the opinion you entertain of the evidence as adduced on the trial of the case/ ” while slightly inaccurate, was not materially erroneous.

2. Under the facts of the case there was no error in the charge of the court as complained of in the 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial.

3. The venue was properly laid in the indictment, and was clearly and ' undisputedly proved by the evidence, and the court instructed the jury that the burden was on the State to prove every material fact alleged in'the indictment. There was no contention whatever as to the venue 'during the trial of the case. Under such circumstances it affords no ground for a new trial that the judge failed to charge the jury specifically that it was" incumbent on the State to prove that, the defendant had the whisky in his possession,' custody, or control in the county of Cherokee.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did npt err in overruling the motion for a new trial. ,

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. It was not error for the judge in his charge to remind the jury of the oath they had taken, that they would well and truly try the case, and to read the oath to them. The statement of the court, in this connection, that the jury had “sworn to try the case ‘according to the opinion you entertain of the evidence as adduced on the trial of the case/ ” while slightly inaccurate, was not materially erroneous.

2. Under the facts of the case there was no error in the charge of the court as complained of in the 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial.

3. The venue was properly laid in the indictment, and was clearly and ' undisputedly proved by the evidence, and the court instructed the jury that the burden was on the State to prove every material fact alleged in'the indictment. There was no contention whatever as to the venue 'during the trial of the case. Under such circumstances it affords no ground for a new trial that the judge failed to charge the jury specifically that it was" incumbent on the State to prove that, the defendant had the whisky in his possession,' custody, or control in the county of Cherokee.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did npt err in overruling the motion for a new trial. ,

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 89, 23 Ga. App. 146, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack