Hendricks v. State

130 S.E. 539, 34 Ga. App. 509, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 356

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hendricks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 34 Ga. App. 508 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 10, 1925·No. 16668·Published

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. This was a proceeding for contempt of court, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrer to the information. See Hendricks v. State, ante, 508.

2. It is not made to appear that the judge erred in denying the motion to declare himself disqualified to preside upon the trial of the case. Hendricks v. State, supra.

3. The evidence was not sufficient to authorize the defendant’s conviction, and the court erred in finding him guilty and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. This was a proceeding for contempt of court, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrer to the information. See Hendricks v. State, ante, 508.

2. It is not made to appear that the judge erred in denying the motion to declare himself disqualified to preside upon the trial of the case. Hendricks v. State, supra.

3. The evidence was not sufficient to authorize the defendant’s conviction, and the court erred in finding him guilty and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Hendricks v. State, 130 S.E. 539, 34 Ga. App. 509, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

130 S.E. 539 (Hendricks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.