Gay v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gay v. State

151 S.E. 240, 40 Ga. App. 731, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 669

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1930

Docket20172

StatusPublished

This text of 151 S.E. 240 (Gay 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

Gay v. State, 151 S.E. 240, 40 Ga. App. 731, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The indictment charges Hugh Gay and E. B. Gay with the larceny of certain hogs belonging to M. L. Mashburn. The jury found both defendants guilty, and their exception is to the overruling of their motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds, and one special ground involving newly discovered evidence.

It would be almost futile to attempt to set out clearly and intelligibly the intricacies of this transaction within the compass of an ordinary opinion. Suffice it to say that the evidence warranted the jury in concluding that Mashbum’s hogs were stolen, and were shortly thereafter in the control and possession of the defendants. The effect of the possession of the hogs by the defendants, and whether or not such possession was satisfactorily explained, were jury questions; and we can not say that the jury’s conclusion expressed in their verdict is not supported by the evidence.

The alleged newly discovered evidence is cumulative in its nature, and would not, in any event, likely result in a different verdict on another trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworlh, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The indictment charges Hugh Gay and E. B. Gay with the larceny of certain hogs belonging to M. L. Mashburn. The jury found both defendants guilty, and their exception is to the overruling of their motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds, and one special ground involving newly discovered evidence.

It would be almost futile to attempt to set out clearly and intelligibly the intricacies of this transaction within the compass of an ordinary opinion. Suffice it to say that the evidence warranted the jury in concluding that Mashbum’s hogs were stolen, and were shortly thereafter in the control and possession of the defendants. The effect of the possession of the hogs by the defendants, and whether or not such possession was satisfactorily explained, were jury questions; and we can not say that the jury’s conclusion expressed in their verdict is not supported by the evidence.

The alleged newly discovered evidence is cumulative in its nature, and would not, in any event, likely result in a different verdict on another trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworlh, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.E. 240, 40 Ga. App. 731, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gay-v-state-gactapp-1930.