McFarlin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McFarlin v. State

83 S.E. 795, 15 Ga. App. 504, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 308

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 22, 1914

Docket6046

StatusPublished

This text of 83 S.E. 795 (McFarlin 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

McFarlin v. State, 83 S.E. 795, 15 Ga. App. 504, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 308 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The evidence authorized the conviction of the defendant, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. The fact that one witness testified that the defendant was engaged, with others, in playing cards, and that money was upon the floor in front of them, and that the defendant had cards in his hands, and that he and all of the others, except one, fled when the witness approached, was sufficient to authorize the inference that the accused was gambling. Griffin v. State, 2 Ga. App. 534 (58 S. E. 781) ; Colbert v. State, 8 Ga. App. 407 (69 S. E. 315) ; Power v. State, 8 Ga. App. 408 (69 S. E. 315) ; Hall v. State, 12 Ga. App. 571 (77 S. E. 893) ; Harmon v. State, 120 Ga. 197 (47 S. E. 547). There was considerable evidence introduced by the defendant to show that he was not present, but, the jury having believed the testimony of the witness who swore that he was, and the trial judge having approved their verdict, their finding will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Accusation of gaming; from city court of Zebulon—Judge Dupree. October 29, 1914.

U. 0. Farr, for plaintiff in error. J. F. Redding, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, J.

The evidence authorized the conviction of the defendant, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. The fact that one witness testified that the defendant was engaged, with others, in playing cards, and that money was upon the floor in front of them, and that the defendant had cards in his hands, and that he and all of the others, except one, fled when the witness approached, was sufficient to authorize the inference that the accused was gambling. Griffin v. State, 2 Ga. App. 534 (58 S. E. 781) ; Colbert v. State, 8 Ga. App. 407 (69 S. E. 315) ; Power v. State, 8 Ga. App. 408 (69 S. E. 315) ; Hall v. State, 12 Ga. App. 571 (77 S. E. 893) ; Harmon v. State, 120 Ga. 197 (47 S. E. 547). There was considerable evidence introduced by the defendant to show that he was not present, but, the jury having believed the testimony of the witness who swore that he was, and the trial judge having approved their verdict, their finding will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Accusation of gaming; from city court of Zebulon—Judge Dupree. October 29, 1914.

U. 0. Farr, for plaintiff in error. J. F. Redding, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.E. 795, 15 Ga. App. 504, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarlin-v-state-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack