Heywood v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Heywood v. State

77 S.E. 1130, 12 Ga. App. 643, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 677

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1913

Docket4711

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 1130 (Heywood 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

Heywood v. State, 77 S.E. 1130, 12 Ga. App. 643, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 677 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. Where a segregation of the witnesses has been demanded by the accused, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit the prosecutor to be first sworn, and thereafter to remain in court for the purpose of assisting the solicitor.

2. Testimony that the witness was present and had as good opportunity to see the transaction as others who were present, and that no such transaction took place, because he did not see it, when he would have seen it if it had taken place, is positive testimony. Testimony that the witness was present and did not see the transaction is merely negative. There being both positive and negative testimony in the present case, it was not erroneous to give in charge to the jury the law in reference to the comparative value of the two classes of testimony.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. Where a segregation of the witnesses has been demanded by the accused, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit the prosecutor to be first sworn, and thereafter to remain in court for the purpose of assisting the solicitor.

2. Testimony that the witness was present and had as good opportunity to see the transaction as others who were present, and that no such transaction took place, because he did not see it, when he would have seen it if it had taken place, is positive testimony. Testimony that the witness was present and did not see the transaction is merely negative. There being both positive and negative testimony in the present case, it was not erroneous to give in charge to the jury the law in reference to the comparative value of the two classes of testimony.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 1130, 12 Ga. App. 643, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heywood-v-state-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack