Littlefield v. State

97 S.E. 259, 22 Ga. App. 783, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 746

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 1, 1918·No. 9794·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Harwell, J.

The evidence amply authorized .the defendant’s conviction of having and possessing intoxicating liquors, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. April 10, 1918.

W~ E. Mann, Olénn & House, for .plaintiff in error. Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Harwell, J.

The evidence amply authorized .the defendant’s conviction of having and possessing intoxicating liquors, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. April 10, 1918.

W~ E. Mann, Olénn & House, for .plaintiff in error. Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

Littlefield v. State, 97 S.E. 259, 22 Ga. App. 783, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 746 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

97 S.E. 259 (Littlefield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

State v. Ayres

211 P.2d 142 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1949)

Wells v. State

158 S.E. 641 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Opinion

Related