Mallory v. State
This text of 62 Ga. 164 (Mallory v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. Where the court in considering a motion to suspend a case until a witness could come in, made by counsel who stated that he, the counsel, did not have notice that the evidence of the state would disclose the date or place or the other party to the game (the indictment being for gaming),and the court replied, “But your client knew,” and when the counsel alluded to the fact that the indictment specified another day, and said his client did not know, and the court replied “ the court thinks he did,’’ and added “that the state had the right to prove the offense any time within two years before the finding of the bill and that the law charged the defendant with notice : ”
Held, that there is no such expression or intimation of an opinion on the evidence as requires the grant of a new trial. 22 Go,., 403.
2. Nickels striked at cards need not be proven to be of value.
3. The evidence is sufficient to convict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 Ga. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallory-v-state-ga-1878.