Mavergames v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mavergames v. State

32 S.E.2d 419, 71 Ga. App. 783, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 223

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1944

Docket30663.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 S.E.2d 419 (Mavergames 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

Mavergames v. State, 32 S.E.2d 419, 71 Ga. App. 783, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 223 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Eulton County of the offense of operating a lottery, known as the “number game,” for the-hazarding of money. His petition for the writ of certiorari was granted, and, on a hearing thereon, the certiorari was overruled. The only assignment of error in the petition for certiorari was based oñ the alleged ground that the defendant’s conviction was not authorized by the evidence. The evidence set out in the petition, together with the documentary evidence set forth in the answer of the trial judge, amply, authorized the verdict in the trial court; and the overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affii'med.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Eulton County of the offense of operating a lottery, known as the “number game,” for the-hazarding of money. His petition for the writ of certiorari was granted, and, on a hearing thereon, the certiorari was overruled. The only assignment of error in the petition for certiorari was based oñ the alleged ground that the defendant’s conviction was not authorized by the evidence. The evidence set out in the petition, together with the documentary evidence set forth in the answer of the trial judge, amply, authorized the verdict in the trial court; and the overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affii'med.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E.2d 419, 71 Ga. App. 783, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mavergames-v-state-gactapp-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack