Hebbard v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hebbard v. State

125 S.E. 508, 33 Ga. App. 45, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 707

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1924

Docket15770

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 508 (Hebbard 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

Hebbard v. State, 125 S.E. 508, 33 Ga. App. 45, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) “The decision of every issue of fact is exclusively for the jury.” Davis v. Kirkland, 1 Ga. App. 5 (1) (58 S. E. 209). “No principle of law is founded upon better reason or has been more strictly adhered to by this court than that the jury are the proper judges of the weight and sufficiency of testimony and of the credibility of witnesses, and this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury where [47]*47there is evidence to support its findings. Strickland v. Crawley, 1 Ga. App. 139 (58 S. E. 215); Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219 (58 S. E. 218); Daughtry v. S. & S. Ry. Co., 1 Ga. App. 393 (58 S. E. 230).” Unity Cotton Mills v. Hasty, 19 Ga. App. 590 (2) (91 S. E. 916).

“There are no accessories in misdemeanors. All who procure, counsel, command, aid, or abet the commission of a misdemeanor are regarded by the law as principal offenders, and may be indicted as such. The indictment may be joint against all those connected with the criminal enterprise, or it may be several against any one of them. Whether the indictment is joint or several, any particular defendant accused therein of having committed the misdemeanor may be convicted by proof either that he directly and personally enacted the criminal transaction, or that he procured, counseled, commanded, aided, or abetted the criminal transaction of another, who was the direct and immediate actor.” Loeb v. State, 6 Ga. App. 23 (1, 1 a) (64 S. E. 338).

Applying the foregoing rulings to the evidence in this case, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Bloodworth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) “The decision of every issue of fact is exclusively for the jury.” Davis v. Kirkland, 1 Ga. App. 5 (1) (58 S. E. 209). “No principle of law is founded upon better reason or has been more strictly adhered to by this court than that the jury are the proper judges of the weight and sufficiency of testimony and of the credibility of witnesses, and this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury where [47]*47there is evidence to support its findings. Strickland v. Crawley, 1 Ga. App. 139 (58 S. E. 215); Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219 (58 S. E. 218); Daughtry v. S. & S. Ry. Co., 1 Ga. App. 393 (58 S. E. 230).” Unity Cotton Mills v. Hasty, 19 Ga. App. 590 (2) (91 S. E. 916).

“There are no accessories in misdemeanors. All who procure, counsel, command, aid, or abet the commission of a misdemeanor are regarded by the law as principal offenders, and may be indicted as such. The indictment may be joint against all those connected with the criminal enterprise, or it may be several against any one of them. Whether the indictment is joint or several, any particular defendant accused therein of having committed the misdemeanor may be convicted by proof either that he directly and personally enacted the criminal transaction, or that he procured, counseled, commanded, aided, or abetted the criminal transaction of another, who was the direct and immediate actor.” Loeb v. State, 6 Ga. App. 23 (1, 1 a) (64 S. E. 338).

Applying the foregoing rulings to the evidence in this case, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 508, 33 Ga. App. 45, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hebbard-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack