Berry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Berry v. State

179 S.E. 403, 51 Ga. App. 34, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 532

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 26, 1935

Docket24596

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 403 (Berry 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

Berry v. State, 179 S.E. 403, 51 Ga. App. 34, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyx.es, C. J.

The accused was tried in the criminal court of Atlanta for a violation of the lottery laws of the State. The accusation contained two counts, and he was convicted- on both of them. Count 1 charged him with operating a lottery, known as “the number game,” for the hazarding of money. In count 2 he was charged with selling or offering for sale “certain numbers representing a chance in a lottery, which was a device and scheme known as the number game, for the hazarding of money.” Under the evidence adduced there is no merit in the contentions of the defendant that the “venue was not shown beyond a reasonable doubt,” or that the evidence (which was largely circumstantial) was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the certiorari was not error. See Sable v. State, 48 Ga. App. 174 (172 S. E. 236); Thweatt v. State, 48 Ga. App. 389 (172 S. E. 810).

Judgment affirmed.

Maelntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoneur.

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

Broyx.es, C. J.

The accused was tried in the criminal court of Atlanta for a violation of the lottery laws of the State. The accusation contained two counts, and he was convicted- on both of them. Count 1 charged him with operating a lottery, known as “the number game,” for the hazarding of money. In count 2 he was charged with selling or offering for sale “certain numbers representing a chance in a lottery, which was a device and scheme known as the number game, for the hazarding of money.” Under the evidence adduced there is no merit in the contentions of the defendant that the “venue was not shown beyond a reasonable doubt,” or that the evidence (which was largely circumstantial) was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the certiorari was not error. See Sable v. State, 48 Ga. App. 174 (172 S. E. 236); Thweatt v. State, 48 Ga. App. 389 (172 S. E. 810).

Judgment affirmed.

Maelntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 403, 51 Ga. App. 34, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack