Meloof v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Meloof v. State

152 S.E. 920, 41 Ga. App. 322, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 567

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1930

Docket20293

StatusPublished

This text of 152 S.E. 920 (Meloof 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

Meloof v. State, 152 S.E. 920, 41 Ga. App. 322, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Tie accused was convicted of knowingly possessing apparatus for the manufacturing of whisky and of knowingly permitting such apparatus to be located on premises of which he was in possession. The evidence, while circumstantial, clearly connected him with the offenses charged and was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The alleged newly discovered evidence is impeaching in its character and is not such evidence as would likely [323]*323cause a different verdict upon another trial. The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided April 15, 1930. C. F. Presley, L. 8. Bellinger, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, John II. Hudson, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Tie accused was convicted of knowingly possessing apparatus for the manufacturing of whisky and of knowingly permitting such apparatus to be located on premises of which he was in possession. The evidence, while circumstantial, clearly connected him with the offenses charged and was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The alleged newly discovered evidence is impeaching in its character and is not such evidence as would likely [323]*323cause a different verdict upon another trial. The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided April 15, 1930. C. F. Presley, L. 8. Bellinger, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, John II. Hudson, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 920, 41 Ga. App. 322, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meloof-v-state-gactapp-1930.