Forster v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Forster v. State

15 S.E.2d 454, 65 Ga. App. 123, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 273

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1941

Docket28872.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 S.E.2d 454 (Forster 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

Forster v. State, 15 S.E.2d 454, 65 Ga. App. 123, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Walter Forster was indicted for assault and battery. The indictment contained nine counts. Counts 1, 3, 5, >6, 7, and 9 were nolprossed. The jury found the defendant guilty •on count 4, and not guilty on counts 2 and 8. His motion for new trial was overruled, and he excepted. Count 4 charged that the •defendant, in Fulton County, Georgia, on March 21, 1938, committed an assault and battery upon Bert Harris, by striking and beating him with a heavy leather strap, and that “the perpetrator cf said offense was unknown until March 24, 1940.” This is virtually a companion case of Eidson v. State, 65 Ga. App. 119 (15 S. E. 2d, 452). The opinion in that case, by Gardner, J., is a well-considered and exhaustive exposition of the law applicable to the facts ■of that case, and in principle is controlling in the instant case, the facts of both cases, including the assignments of error, both general and special, being very similar, and in principle identical. However, if any of the grounds of the motion for new trial are not •controlled by the decision in the Bidson case, those grounds are without substantial merit. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal of a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Walter Forster was indicted for assault and battery. The indictment contained nine counts. Counts 1, 3, 5, >6, 7, and 9 were nolprossed. The jury found the defendant guilty •on count 4, and not guilty on counts 2 and 8. His motion for new trial was overruled, and he excepted. Count 4 charged that the •defendant, in Fulton County, Georgia, on March 21, 1938, committed an assault and battery upon Bert Harris, by striking and beating him with a heavy leather strap, and that “the perpetrator cf said offense was unknown until March 24, 1940.” This is virtually a companion case of Eidson v. State, 65 Ga. App. 119 (15 S. E. 2d, 452). The opinion in that case, by Gardner, J., is a well-considered and exhaustive exposition of the law applicable to the facts ■of that case, and in principle is controlling in the instant case, the facts of both cases, including the assignments of error, both general and special, being very similar, and in principle identical. However, if any of the grounds of the motion for new trial are not •controlled by the decision in the Bidson case, those grounds are without substantial merit. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal of a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 S.E.2d 454, 65 Ga. App. 123, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forster-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack