Collins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Collins v. State

134 S.E. 181, 35 Ga. App. 577, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 997

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1926

Docket17393

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 181 (Collins 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

Collins v. State, 134 S.E. 181, 35 Ga. App. 577, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 997 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Collins was convicted of knowingly permitting and allowing an apparatus for the manufacturing of alcoholic and intoxicating liquors to be located on his premises. The evidence amply authorized his conviction, which conviction has the approval of the trial judge; and the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, which assail the conviction of the defendant as illegal upon the ground of the relationship of a juror to one alleged to be an undisclosed prosecutor, and upon the ruling of the court on the admissibility of testimony, and the further ground of newly discovered evidence, do not show reversible error. Eor no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Blood-worth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Collins was convicted of knowingly permitting and allowing an apparatus for the manufacturing of alcoholic and intoxicating liquors to be located on his premises. The evidence amply authorized his conviction, which conviction has the approval of the trial judge; and the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, which assail the conviction of the defendant as illegal upon the ground of the relationship of a juror to one alleged to be an undisclosed prosecutor, and upon the ruling of the court on the admissibility of testimony, and the further ground of newly discovered evidence, do not show reversible error. Eor no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Blood-worth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 181, 35 Ga. App. 577, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-state-gactapp-1926.