Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. State

111 S.E. 677, 28 Ga. App. 459, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 597

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket13242

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 677 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 111 S.E. 677, 28 Ga. App. 459, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Under the ruling in Smith v. State, 117. Ga. 16 (43 S. E. 440), the request that costs be refunded to counsel for the plaintiff in error is refused.

2. When considered in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court, the instruction complained of in the first special ground of the motion for a new trial was not erroneous, nor was the following instruction : “ I charge you, if you believe the defendant shot Scott Casey with a gun, and that the gun was loaded with powder and shot, that shot, in law and in contemplation of law, are balls, and if you believe they were shot, that would be, in contemplation of law, balls, and you would be authorized to convict him.”

3. The evidence supports the verdict.

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.

1. Under the ruling in Smith v. State, 117. Ga. 16 (43 S. E. 440), the request that costs be refunded to counsel for the plaintiff in error is refused.

2. When considered in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court, the instruction complained of in the first special ground of the motion for a new trial was not erroneous, nor was the following instruction : “ I charge you, if you believe the defendant shot Scott Casey with a gun, and that the gun was loaded with powder and shot, that shot, in law and in contemplation of law, are balls, and if you believe they were shot, that would be, in contemplation of law, balls, and you would be authorized to convict him.”

3. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 677, 28 Ga. App. 459, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

3. The evidence supports the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack