Britt v. State
37 S.E. 886, 112 Ga. 583, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 15
Opinion
1. The exercise of due diligence on the part of the accused and his counsel would have enabled them to discover before the jury was empanelled that two of the jurors selected to try the case were members of the grand jury that found the bill. See Jones v. State, 95 Ga. 497.
2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed,.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Britt v. State, 37 S.E. 886, 112 Ga. 583, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 15 (Ga. 1901).
37 S.E. 886 (Britt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rogers v. State
156 S.E. 323 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Cason v. State
99 S.E. 61 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
James v. State
98 S.E. 737 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Wilcox v. State
90 S.E. 1032 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Cargill v. State
77 S.E. 832 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)