Bradley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bradley v. State

19 S.E.2d 796, 67 Ga. App. 278

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1942

Docket29396.

StatusPublished

This text of 19 S.E.2d 796 (Bradley 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

Bradley v. State, 19 S.E.2d 796, 67 Ga. App. 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of operating a lottery, known as the “number game,” for the hazarding of money. The evidence for the State, including an incriminatory statement made by the accused, *279 authorized the jury to find her guilty of the offense charged. She introduced no evidence, but made a statement to the jury, denying her guilt, which was evidently rejected by the jury. Her petition for certiorari was based upon the ground that her conviction was not authorized by the evidence, and upon a ground excepting to the admission of certain evidence. However, the special ground is expressly abandoned in the brief of her counsel. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

James R. Venable, Frank A. Bowers, for plaintiff in error. Bond Almand, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, Bur-wood T. Pye, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of operating a lottery, known as the “number game,” for the hazarding of money. The evidence for the State, including an incriminatory statement made by the accused, *279 authorized the jury to find her guilty of the offense charged. She introduced no evidence, but made a statement to the jury, denying her guilt, which was evidently rejected by the jury. Her petition for certiorari was based upon the ground that her conviction was not authorized by the evidence, and upon a ground excepting to the admission of certain evidence. However, the special ground is expressly abandoned in the brief of her counsel. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

James R. Venable, Frank A. Bowers, for plaintiff in error. Bond Almand, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, Bur-wood T. Pye, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.E.2d 796, 67 Ga. App. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-state-gactapp-1942.