Braxton v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Braxton v. State

45 S.E. 64, 117 Ga. 703, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 306

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 25, 1903·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Fish, J.

1. The deceitful means and artful practice by -which an indictment charges the prosecutor was defrauded and cheated need not be the sole inducement which caused him to part with his property. Proof that they were relied upon and constituted in part such inducement will authorize a conviction, though there may have been other contributing inducements. 2 Clark & Marshall, Law of Crimes, 841, and cases cited.

2. There was no error in admitting testimony, and the evidence authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. O. N. Sellers, for plaintiff in error. William Brunson, solicitor-general contra.

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

Fish, J.

1. The deceitful means and artful practice by -which an indictment charges the prosecutor was defrauded and cheated need not be the sole inducement which caused him to part with his property. Proof that they were relied upon and constituted in part such inducement will authorize a conviction, though there may have been other contributing inducements. 2 Clark & Marshall, Law of Crimes, 841, and cases cited.

2. There was no error in admitting testimony, and the evidence authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. O. N. Sellers, for plaintiff in error. William Brunson, solicitor-general contra.

Braxton v. State, 45 S.E. 64, 117 Ga. 703, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 306 (Ga. 1903).

Pincite

45 S.E. 64 (Braxton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related