Grant v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grant v. State

110 S.E. 415, 27 Ga. App. 623, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 314

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 17, 1921·No. 12721·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The evidence relied upon by the State to connect the accused with the offense of the larceny of a hog is wholly circumstantial, and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Conviction oil larceny of hog; from Wilcox superior court — Judge Gower. July 5, 1921.

Hal Lawson, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, Grantham, & Kassewitz, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The evidence relied upon by the State to connect the accused with the offense of the larceny of a hog is wholly circumstantial, and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Conviction oil larceny of hog; from Wilcox superior court — Judge Gower. July 5, 1921.

Hal Lawson, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, Grantham, & Kassewitz, contra.

Grant v. State, 110 S.E. 415, 27 Ga. App. 623, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

110 S.E. 415 (Grant v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.