McQuarie v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McQuarie v. State

121 S.E. 711, 31 Ga. App. 736, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 156

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1924

Docket14977

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 711 (McQuarie 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

McQuarie v. State, 121 S.E. 711, 31 Ga. App. 736, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 156 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

In answer to a question certified by this court the Supreme Court said: “According to the facts stated in the question propounded by the Court of Appeals, the trial court erred in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence that one of the jurors trying the case was disqualified because related within the prohibited degree to named stockholders of the bank from which the accused was convicted of the offense of embezzling funds.” Eor full opinion see 157 Ga. 380 (121 S. R. 316).

As a new trial must result from the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is unnecessary to consider the other allegations of error. The errors complained of are not likely to recur.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

In answer to a question certified by this court the Supreme Court said: “According to the facts stated in the question propounded by the Court of Appeals, the trial court erred in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence that one of the jurors trying the case was disqualified because related within the prohibited degree to named stockholders of the bank from which the accused was convicted of the offense of embezzling funds.” Eor full opinion see 157 Ga. 380 (121 S. R. 316).

As a new trial must result from the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is unnecessary to consider the other allegations of error. The errors complained of are not likely to recur.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 711, 31 Ga. App. 736, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcquarie-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack