Moore v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. State

159 S.E. 134, 43 Ga. App. 428, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 406

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moore v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 48 Ga. App. 98 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 9, 1931·No. 21492·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of simple larceny (cattle stealing), and the only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial which contained the usual general grounds only. The evidence authorized the verdict; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed,.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworlh, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of simple larceny (cattle stealing), and the only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial which contained the usual general grounds only. The evidence authorized the verdict; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed,.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworlh, J., absent on account of illness.

Moore v. State, 159 S.E. 134, 43 Ga. App. 428, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

159 S.E. 134 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.