Barclay v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Barclay v. State

197 Ga. 143

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 30, 1943

DocketNo. 14728

StatusPublished

This text of 197 Ga. 143 (Barclay v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barclay v. State, 197 Ga. 143 (Ga. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Wyatt, Justice.

The motion for new trial contains the general grounds only. The evidence, although entirely circumstantial, was sufficient nevertheless to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Carlyle Giles, for plaintiffs in error. T. Grady Head, attorney-general, C. S. Baldwin Jr., solicitor-general, and L. C. Groves, assistant attorney-general, contra.

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

Wyatt, Justice.

The motion for new trial contains the general grounds only. The evidence, although entirely circumstantial, was sufficient nevertheless to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Carlyle Giles, for plaintiffs in error. T. Grady Head, attorney-general, C. S. Baldwin Jr., solicitor-general, and L. C. Groves, assistant attorney-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 Ga. 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclay-v-state-ga-1943.