Drew v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Drew v. State

88 S.E. 716, 18 Ga. App. 34, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 96

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 25, 1916

Docket7299

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 716 (Drew 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

Drew v. State, 88 S.E. 716, 18 Ga. App. 34, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 96 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. “Any person who shall wilfully or wantonly injure or destroy any inelosure around or within any public or private burying ground, or any monument, tombstone, or other fixtures therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Penal Code, § 770.

(a) To authorize a conviction under this section it is not necessary to show strict legal title to the inelosure alleged to be the private burying ground of a certain person or family. There was evidence that the inclosure injured by tl\e defendant had been used as a private burying ground by a certain family, “and a certain plat kept up as theirs for more than fifty years.”

2. There is no substantial merit in any of the assignments of error-, the evidence sufficiently supported the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Wade, J.

1. “Any person who shall wilfully or wantonly injure or destroy any inelosure around or within any public or private burying ground, or any monument, tombstone, or other fixtures therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Penal Code, § 770.

(a) To authorize a conviction under this section it is not necessary to show strict legal title to the inelosure alleged to be the private burying ground of a certain person or family. There was evidence that the inclosure injured by tl\e defendant had been used as a private burying ground by a certain family, “and a certain plat kept up as theirs for more than fifty years.”

2. There is no substantial merit in any of the assignments of error-, the evidence sufficiently supported the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 716, 18 Ga. App. 34, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack