Dillard v. State
103 S.E. 714, 25 Ga. App. 402, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 838
Opinion
The charge of the court upon the question of recent possession of stolen goods, as complained of, was not erroneous for the reason stated in Cuthbert v. State, 3 Ga. App. 600 (60 S. E. 322). See Jackson v. State, 25 Ga. App. 16 (102 S. E. 373). The charge of the court was full and fair, and the’evidence amply authorized, if indeed it did not almost demand, the conviction of the defendant. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dillard v. State, 103 S.E. 714, 25 Ga. App. 402, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 838 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).
103 S.E. 714 (Dillard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cuthbert v. State
60 S.E. 322 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Jackson v. State
102 S.E. 373 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)