Cook v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cook v. State

21 S.E.2d 814, 68 Ga. App. 5, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1942

Docket29672.

StatusPublished

This text of 21 S.E.2d 814 (Cook 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

Cook v. State, 21 S.E.2d 814, 68 Ga. App. 5, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 5 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Eulton County of the offense of operating a lottery, known as the “number game.” The judge was presiding without the intervention of a jury. The undisputed evidence (the defendant introduced no evidence and made no statement to the judge) authorized a finding that the accused was either a “writer” for the lottery, or that he was aiding and abetting his “writer” wife in the operation of the lottery, which is a misdemeanor. In either event he was guilty as a principal, there being no accessories in such an offense. The special assignments of error in the petition for certiorari are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error and are treated as abandoned.- The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Eulton County of the offense of operating a lottery, known as the “number game.” The judge was presiding without the intervention of a jury. The undisputed evidence (the defendant introduced no evidence and made no statement to the judge) authorized a finding that the accused was either a “writer” for the lottery, or that he was aiding and abetting his “writer” wife in the operation of the lottery, which is a misdemeanor. In either event he was guilty as a principal, there being no accessories in such an offense. The special assignments of error in the petition for certiorari are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error and are treated as abandoned.- The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.E.2d 814, 68 Ga. App. 5, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-state-gactapp-1942.