Head v. State

92 S.E. 869, 147 Ga. 81, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 62
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 13, 1917
StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 869 (Head v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Head v. State, 92 S.E. 869, 147 Ga. 81, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 62 (Ga. 1917).

Opinions

Beck, J.

1. The constitutional 'questions made in these ■ cases are controlled adversely to the plaintiffs in error by the decisions and rulings made in Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547 (91 S. E. 561), and Bunger v. State, 146 Ga. 672 (92 S. E. 72).

2. In those cases raising the objection that the evidence was insufficient, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial based upon that ground.

3. Grounds of the motion for a new trial not urged in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are considered as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, eoscept

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

Related

Delaney v. Plunkett
91 S.E. 561 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Bunger v. State
92 S.E. 72 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.E. 869, 147 Ga. 81, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/head-v-state-ga-1917.