Henderson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henderson v. State

116 S.E. 913, 30 Ga. App. 5, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 207

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1923

Docket14032

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 913 (Henderson 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

Henderson v. State, 116 S.E. 913, 30 Ga. App. 5, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 207 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The evidence in this ease is entirely circumstantial, and fails to connect the accused with the crime to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, and the judge erred in overruling' the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he had nothing to do with the explosion, and was at home the entire night in question; that he had never seen Lovell, but had sent him word not to cut the timber unless he came and bought it and paid for it; that he (the defendant) consulted attorneys about bringing suit against Lovell for damages, but had no intention of doing him damage. Others testified that on the night in question the defendant was at home all night; that the wife of Enoch Waters, who lived there, was sick that night, and they were sitting up with her, and that in the morning, just before day, Waters and the defendant’s brother left there together to get some medicine for her. It was testified that before and after the time of the explosion the defendant’s buggy had a piece of wire wrapped around the right-hand rear wheel, over the tire, and that there was no impression of such a wire in the buggy tracks described by the witnesses for the State. It was also testified that about the time of the finding of the tracks one Williams was seen coming to the sawmill, and that he had tracks of the kind described by the witnesses for the State.

E. II. Williams, 8. F. Memory, for plaintiff in error. II. L. Causey, solicitor, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The evidence in this ease is entirely circumstantial, and fails to connect the accused with the crime to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, and the judge erred in overruling' the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he had nothing to do with the explosion, and was at home the entire night in question; that he had never seen Lovell, but had sent him word not to cut the timber unless he came and bought it and paid for it; that he (the defendant) consulted attorneys about bringing suit against Lovell for damages, but had no intention of doing him damage. Others testified that on the night in question the defendant was at home all night; that the wife of Enoch Waters, who lived there, was sick that night, and they were sitting up with her, and that in the morning, just before day, Waters and the defendant’s brother left there together to get some medicine for her. It was testified that before and after the time of the explosion the defendant’s buggy had a piece of wire wrapped around the right-hand rear wheel, over the tire, and that there was no impression of such a wire in the buggy tracks described by the witnesses for the State. It was also testified that about the time of the finding of the tracks one Williams was seen coming to the sawmill, and that he had tracks of the kind described by the witnesses for the State.

E. II. Williams, 8. F. Memory, for plaintiff in error. II. L. Causey, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 913, 30 Ga. App. 5, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-state-gactapp-1923.