Bracewell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bracewell v. State

94 S.E. 91, 21 Ga. App. 133, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 31, 1917

Docket9034

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 91 (Bracewell 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

Bracewell v. State, 94 S.E. 91, 21 Ga. App. 133, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

The defendant was charged, fointly with one Wynn, of dynamiting fish, and was found guilty. The evidence shows that the defendant suggested to Wynn that they go down to Turkey Creek and get a mess of fish, and together they went to the creek. Defendant was not seen to have any fishing tackle of any kind when he went to the creek. A large explosion was heard at the creek, and when witnesses who heard it arrived at its source they found the water muddy, dead fish floating on its surface, and saw the defendant and Wynn gathering in the fish. Wynn was in the water picking up fish, and the defendant on the bank with a dip-net dipping them up. The defendant was afterward seen on his way home with the fish; and when asked if they were fit to eat, he replied that they were. We think the evidence amply supports the verdict; and the errors alleged to have been committed on the trial are dealt with in the headnotes to this decision.

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.

The defendant was charged, fointly with one Wynn, of dynamiting fish, and was found guilty. The evidence shows that the defendant suggested to Wynn that they go down to Turkey Creek and get a mess of fish, and together they went to the creek. Defendant was not seen to have any fishing tackle of any kind when he went to the creek. A large explosion was heard at the creek, and when witnesses who heard it arrived at its source they found the water muddy, dead fish floating on its surface, and saw the defendant and Wynn gathering in the fish. Wynn was in the water picking up fish, and the defendant on the bank with a dip-net dipping them up. The defendant was afterward seen on his way home with the fish; and when asked if they were fit to eat, he replied that they were. We think the evidence amply supports the verdict; and the errors alleged to have been committed on the trial are dealt with in the headnotes to this decision.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 91, 21 Ga. App. 133, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracewell-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack