Hurt v. State

88 S.E. 901, 18 Ga. App. 110, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 150
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 18, 1916·No. 7274·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Russell, O. J.

The corpus delicti of an arson may, of course, be established by circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances are sufficient' to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of a wilful and intentional burning, and are so strong as to rebut the presumption that the fire was of providential or accidental origin; but the circumstances in the present case arq not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption as to the origin of the fire.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.

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

Hurt v. State, 88 S.E. 901, 18 Ga. App. 110, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

88 S.E. 901 (Hurt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blalock v. State
164 S.E.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)