Dent v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dent v. State

70 S.E. 50, 8 Ga. App. 757, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 134

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dent v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 14 Ga. App. 269 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 7, 1911·No. 3002·Published

Opinion

Powell,- J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for continuance, under all the circumstances shown.

3. While it is bettfer that the judge, in charging on the statement of the accused, should follow the language of the statute literally, yet there was not such a departure in the present case as to amount to reversible error. ' Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell,- J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for continuance, under all the circumstances shown.

3. While it is bettfer that the judge, in charging on the statement of the accused, should follow the language of the statute literally, yet there was not such a departure in the present case as to amount to reversible error. ' Judgment affirmed.

Dent v. State, 70 S.E. 50, 8 Ga. App. 757, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

70 S.E. 50 (Dent v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.