Drumps v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Drumps v. State

177 S.E. 255, 50 Ga. App. 184, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 685

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 23, 1934

Docket24419

StatusPublished

This text of 177 S.E. 255 (Drumps 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

Drumps v. State, 177 S.E. 255, 50 Ga. App. 184, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of malicious mischief in destroying certain signs. The evidence was amply sufficient as to the destruction and the malice. It is insisted in the brief of counsel for the defendant that the evidence did not show that the signs destroyed were on the land of the prosecutor and alleged owner. No objection was made to testimony introduced with reference to the ownership of the signs, and there was no evidence that the land on which the signs in question were erected did not belong to the alleged owner. Moreover, the accusation did not charge that the signs were on the prosecutor’s land. The evidence disclosed that the signs destroyed belonged to the person alleged in the accusation. We are of the opinion that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial based on the general grounds alone.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of malicious mischief in destroying certain signs. The evidence was amply sufficient as to the destruction and the malice. It is insisted in the brief of counsel for the defendant that the evidence did not show that the signs destroyed were on the land of the prosecutor and alleged owner. No objection was made to testimony introduced with reference to the ownership of the signs, and there was no evidence that the land on which the signs in question were erected did not belong to the alleged owner. Moreover, the accusation did not charge that the signs were on the prosecutor’s land. The evidence disclosed that the signs destroyed belonged to the person alleged in the accusation. We are of the opinion that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial based on the general grounds alone.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E. 255, 50 Ga. App. 184, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drumps-v-state-gactapp-1934.