Findley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Findley v. State

157 S.E. 888, 43 Ga. App. 94, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 196

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 31, 1931

Docket21113

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E. 888 (Findley 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

Findley v. State, 157 S.E. 888, 43 Ga. App. 94, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C, J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, the overruling of a demurrer to an indictment can not be excepted to in a motion for a new trial. There must be a direct exception in the bill of exceptions. This ruling disposes of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. The jury were authorized to find from all the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused, at the time he obtained the money from the [95]*95prosecutor, had formed the intent to cheat and swindle the prosecutor, and that such intent was carried out. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Decided March 31, 1931. TF. E. Lasseler, for plaintiff in- error. T. Eoyl Davis, solicitor-general, contra. Judgment affirmed. Luke <md Bloodworth, JJ., coticur.

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

Broyles, C, J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, the overruling of a demurrer to an indictment can not be excepted to in a motion for a new trial. There must be a direct exception in the bill of exceptions. This ruling disposes of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. The jury were authorized to find from all the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused, at the time he obtained the money from the [95]*95prosecutor, had formed the intent to cheat and swindle the prosecutor, and that such intent was carried out. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Decided March 31, 1931. TF. E. Lasseler, for plaintiff in- error. T. Eoyl Davis, solicitor-general, contra. Judgment affirmed. Luke <md Bloodworth, JJ., coticur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E. 888, 43 Ga. App. 94, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/findley-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack