Bellamy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bellamy v. State

97 S.E. 276, 23 Ga. App. 19, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 15

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 7, 1918·No. 10045·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Harwell, J.

1. In his motion for a continuance the defendant did not comply with all the requirements of the Penal Code (1910), § 987, necessary to make a complete showing, and, therefore, the court did not err in overruling , the motion.

2. The court correctly instructed the jury upon the theory of agency, raised by the defendant upon the trial, but the jury evidently rejected this theory and found the defendant to be the seller ’ of the whisky.

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and, it having been approved by the trial judge, this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Harwell, J.

1. In his motion for a continuance the defendant did not comply with all the requirements of the Penal Code (1910), § 987, necessary to make a complete showing, and, therefore, the court did not err in overruling , the motion.

2. The court correctly instructed the jury upon the theory of agency, raised by the defendant upon the trial, but the jury evidently rejected this theory and found the defendant to be the seller ’ of the whisky.

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and, it having been approved by the trial judge, this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Bellamy v. State, 97 S.E. 276, 23 Ga. App. 19, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

97 S.E. 276 (Bellamy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related