Jackson v. State

95 S.E. 537, 22 Ga. App. 131, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 192
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jackson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 Ga. App. 146
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 2, 1918·No. 9517·Published

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

The conviction was not authorized by the evidence, and the' court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ.,- concur. S. A. Nix testified: “On the day that Mr. E. L. Whitworth came to the oil-mill inquiring for some.seed I bought a small load of cottonseed from Eobert Jackson. There were five or six hundred pounds in the load. Mr. Whitworth came asking about the seed about 8 o’clock a. m., and I had bought these seed about one hour before that. I don’t remember whether I had bought other seed from other parties that day or not. At that time there were several other cottonseed buyers buying seed at Camilla.” There was no additional evidence. - Charles Walt Jr., for plaintiff in error.

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

Jackson v. State, 95 S.E. 537, 22 Ga. App. 131, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 192 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

95 S.E. 537 (Jackson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.