Grant v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grant v. State

91 S.E. 338, 19 Ga. App. 229, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 69

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1917

Docket7884

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 338 (Grant 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

Grant v. State, 91 S.E. 338, 19 Ga. App. 229, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 69 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

Dan Grant and others were jointly tried for the offense of selling whisky. One of the defenses relied upon by Grant in his statement at the trial was that he had acted merely [230]*230as agent of the buyer, in procuring the whisky. Several exceptions to the admission of testimony were taken, but in the brief filed by counsel for plaintiff in error he insists a new trial should be granted him for the sole reason that the court did not give in charge the law applicable to the particular contention stated above. No request for such a charge was made, and the court did charge the jury that they might believe this defendant’s statement in preference to the sworn testimony.

Judgment affw'med.

Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

George, J.

Dan Grant and others were jointly tried for the offense of selling whisky. One of the defenses relied upon by Grant in his statement at the trial was that he had acted merely [230]*230as agent of the buyer, in procuring the whisky. Several exceptions to the admission of testimony were taken, but in the brief filed by counsel for plaintiff in error he insists a new trial should be granted him for the sole reason that the court did not give in charge the law applicable to the particular contention stated above. No request for such a charge was made, and the court did charge the jury that they might believe this defendant’s statement in preference to the sworn testimony.

Judgment affw'med.

Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 338, 19 Ga. App. 229, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack