Davenport v. State

108 S.E. 132, 27 Ga. App. 286, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 832

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Davenport v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 27 Ga. App. 284 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 12, 1921·No. 12412·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. When considered in connection -with the entire charge of the court and in the light of the evidence, the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial are not erroneous for any reason assigned.

2. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

2. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Davenport v. State, 108 S.E. 132, 27 Ga. App. 286, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

108 S.E. 132 (Davenport v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.