Clark v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clark v. State

91 S.E. 231, 19 Ga. App. 145, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 33

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1917

Docket7976

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 231 (Clark 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

Clark v. State, 91 S.E. 231, 19 Ga. App. 145, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 33 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

The evidence in this case, though circumstantial, was -sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Therefore the verdict finding him guilty of sheep-stealing, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed, although it does appear, as counsel for the plaintiff in error insist, that the stolen sheep came back; as was true in the case of “Bo-Peep,” which is respectfully submitted to us as authority. While the sheep came back, it does not appear that this is in any wise conclusive that they had not been in fact taken and carried away, as alleged in the indictment; it being entirely for the jury to say whether.or not an extended search by the prosecutor, armed with a search warrant, of which the accused had actual notice, some three weeks before the home-coming of the sheep, may riot have influenced their return.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

George, J.

The evidence in this case, though circumstantial, was -sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Therefore the verdict finding him guilty of sheep-stealing, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed, although it does appear, as counsel for the plaintiff in error insist, that the stolen sheep came back; as was true in the case of “Bo-Peep,” which is respectfully submitted to us as authority. While the sheep came back, it does not appear that this is in any wise conclusive that they had not been in fact taken and carried away, as alleged in the indictment; it being entirely for the jury to say whether.or not an extended search by the prosecutor, armed with a search warrant, of which the accused had actual notice, some three weeks before the home-coming of the sheep, may riot have influenced their return.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 231, 19 Ga. App. 145, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-gactapp-1917.