Fordham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fordham v. State

100 S.E. 790, 24 Ga. App. 369, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 669

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 5, 1919

Docket10763

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 790 (Fordham 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

Fordham v. State, 100 S.E. 790, 24 Ga. App. 369, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. It appearing from some of the evidence in this case that immediately preceding the killing the deceased and the defendant had a quarrel and a tussle and cursed each other, that each procured a pistol, and that the deceased, with his hand on a pistol in his pocket, was advancing on the defendant when the defendant shot and killed him, the jury were authorized to infer a mutual intent to fight, and the court did not err in giving in charge to the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter.

2. The court did not err as complained of, in excluding certain evidence. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodicorth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. It appearing from some of the evidence in this case that immediately preceding the killing the deceased and the defendant had a quarrel and a tussle and cursed each other, that each procured a pistol, and that the deceased, with his hand on a pistol in his pocket, was advancing on the defendant when the defendant shot and killed him, the jury were authorized to infer a mutual intent to fight, and the court did not err in giving in charge to the jury the law of voluntary manslaughter.

2. The court did not err as complained of, in excluding certain evidence. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodicorth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 790, 24 Ga. App. 369, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fordham-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack