Mathis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mathis v. State

107 S.E. 347, 27 Ga. App. 79, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 693

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1921

Docket12354

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E. 347 (Mathis 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

Mathis v. State, 107 S.E. 347, 27 Ga. App. 79, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder, and moved for a change of venue, on the grounds that he could not obtain an impartial jury in the county where the alleged crime was committed, and that there was danger of his being lynched, or other violence committed upon him, if he should be brought there for trial, and especially if he should be tried and acquitted. Upon the hearing of the motion the evidence was conflicting on the material issues involved, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. See, in this connection, Crawley v. State, 24 Ga. App. 33 (99 S. E. 705), and citations. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Motion to change venue; from Chattooga superior court — Judge Wright. March 22, 1921.

Porter & Mebane, for paintiff in error. E. S. Taylor, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder, and moved for a change of venue, on the grounds that he could not obtain an impartial jury in the county where the alleged crime was committed, and that there was danger of his being lynched, or other violence committed upon him, if he should be brought there for trial, and especially if he should be tried and acquitted. Upon the hearing of the motion the evidence was conflicting on the material issues involved, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. See, in this connection, Crawley v. State, 24 Ga. App. 33 (99 S. E. 705), and citations. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Motion to change venue; from Chattooga superior court — Judge Wright. March 22, 1921.

Porter & Mebane, for paintiff in error. E. S. Taylor, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 347, 27 Ga. App. 79, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack