Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Leeth v. State

Leeth v. State

144 S.E. 133, 38 Ga. App. 353, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 224
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 10, 1928
Docket18981
StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 133 (Leeth 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
Leeth v. State, 144 S.E. 133, 38 Ga. App. 353, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Luke, J.

Leeth was convicted of violating the prohibition law. The evi-

dence was wholly circumstantial and, in our opinion, not sufficient to meet the legal requirement. Eor this reason the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., eoneurs. Broyles, O. J., dissents. R. Garter Pittman, J. B. Rosser, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Hampton v. State, 34 Ga. App. 699; King v. State, 37 Ga. App. 482.

John C. Mitchell, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Related

Hampton v. State
131 S.E. 688 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
King v. State
141 S.E. 87 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 S.E. 133, 38 Ga. App. 353, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeth-v-state-gactapp-1928.