Cassedy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cassedy v. State

7 S.E.2d 190, 61 Ga. App. 621, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 194

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 5, 1940

Docket28008.

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.E.2d 190 (Cassedy 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

Cassedy v. State, 7 S.E.2d 190, 61 Ga. App. 621, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. It appears from the bill of exceptions and the record that the defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled on August 1, 1939, and the bill of exceptions was presented to the judge on August 21, 1939. The presentation was within twenty days of the judgment excepted to, and the motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied.

2. The defendant was tried on an accusation which charged him with selling an automobile which he had bought from Joe Garrett under a re-ta.ined-title contract, with intent to defraud said Garrett. The evidence failed to show that the defendant sold the automobile as charged in the accusation; and therefore the verdict of guilty was unauthorized. The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gtuerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. It appears from the bill of exceptions and the record that the defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled on August 1, 1939, and the bill of exceptions was presented to the judge on August 21, 1939. The presentation was within twenty days of the judgment excepted to, and the motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied.

2. The defendant was tried on an accusation which charged him with selling an automobile which he had bought from Joe Garrett under a re-ta.ined-title contract, with intent to defraud said Garrett. The evidence failed to show that the defendant sold the automobile as charged in the accusation; and therefore the verdict of guilty was unauthorized. The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gtuerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.E.2d 190, 61 Ga. App. 621, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassedy-v-state-gactapp-1940.