Holloway v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holloway v. State

72 S.E. 512, 10 Ga. App. 49, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 643

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1911

Docket3537

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 512 (Holloway 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

Holloway v. State, 72 S.E. 512, 10 Ga. App. 49, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 643 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Bussell, J.

The motion for a new trial raises only the question whether under the evidence the conviction was legal. We are inclined to agree with the main witness himself, and also with the policeman, that the former’s character is bad, and that, as a general proposition, his testimony would be unworthy of credit; but the circumstances of corroboration are such as might authorize the inference that the witness was telling the truth as to the transaction testified to in the instant case. Strozier v. Carroll, [50]*5031 Ga. 557; Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 20 (5), (29 S. E. 309, 65 Am. St. Rep. 277); Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465. The only question involved was one to be determined by the jury, and by the jury alone. There is no limitation on the power of a jury to credit a witness, unless the facts testified to by him be, according to the common knowledge of mankind, inherently impossible. Pyles v. State, 3 Ga. App. 29 (59 S. E. 193); Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S. E. 520). Judgment affirmed.

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

Bussell, J.

The motion for a new trial raises only the question whether under the evidence the conviction was legal. We are inclined to agree with the main witness himself, and also with the policeman, that the former’s character is bad, and that, as a general proposition, his testimony would be unworthy of credit; but the circumstances of corroboration are such as might authorize the inference that the witness was telling the truth as to the transaction testified to in the instant case. Strozier v. Carroll, [50]*5031 Ga. 557; Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 20 (5), (29 S. E. 309, 65 Am. St. Rep. 277); Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465. The only question involved was one to be determined by the jury, and by the jury alone. There is no limitation on the power of a jury to credit a witness, unless the facts testified to by him be, according to the common knowledge of mankind, inherently impossible. Pyles v. State, 3 Ga. App. 29 (59 S. E. 193); Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S. E. 520). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 512, 10 Ga. App. 49, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-state-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack