Davis v. State

95 S.E. 474, 22 Ga. App. 119, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 184

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Davis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 Ga. App. 35 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 2, 1918·No. 9486·Published

Opinion

Beoyies, P. J.

1. When considered in connection with its context, the excerpt from the charge of the court, to which exception was taken, was not erroneous for the reason assigned.

2. The evidence authorized a finding that the storehouse Jin question had been broken into and entered.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and the court did pot' err in refusing a new trial.

' Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur. B. N. Poltzclaw, for plaintiff in error. John P. Boss, solicitor-general, contra;'

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

Beoyies, P. J.

1. When considered in connection with its context, the excerpt from the charge of the court, to which exception was taken, was not erroneous for the reason assigned.

2. The evidence authorized a finding that the storehouse Jin question had been broken into and entered.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and the court did pot' err in refusing a new trial.

' Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur. B. N. Poltzclaw, for plaintiff in error. John P. Boss, solicitor-general, contra;'

Davis v. State, 95 S.E. 474, 22 Ga. App. 119, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

95 S.E. 474 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.