Morris v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morris v. State

115 S.E. 37, 29 Ga. App. 268, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 230

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13807

StatusPublished

This text of 115 S.E. 37 (Morris 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

Morris v. State, 115 S.E. 37, 29 Ga. App. 268, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 230 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendants were convicted of maintaining a lewd house. One of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial complains of the following charge of the court: “ It is not necessary that the State should show any particular act of fornication or adultery to have been committed, if the evidence, either directly or indirectly or circumstantially, is such as to satisfy the jury that the house was kept and maintained as a lewd house.” This ground does not show reversible error. See Fitzgerald v. State, 10 Ga. App. 71, 76 (5) (72 S. E. 541). The other assignments of error are likewise without merit; and, there being evidence to support the verdict of guilty, which has the approval of the trial judge, this court will not interfere with the judgment overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., ooneur. ■

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

Luke, J.

The defendants were convicted of maintaining a lewd house. One of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial complains of the following charge of the court: “ It is not necessary that the State should show any particular act of fornication or adultery to have been committed, if the evidence, either directly or indirectly or circumstantially, is such as to satisfy the jury that the house was kept and maintained as a lewd house.” This ground does not show reversible error. See Fitzgerald v. State, 10 Ga. App. 71, 76 (5) (72 S. E. 541). The other assignments of error are likewise without merit; and, there being evidence to support the verdict of guilty, which has the approval of the trial judge, this court will not interfere with the judgment overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., ooneur. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E. 37, 29 Ga. App. 268, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack