Morrow v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morrow v. State

131 S.E. 542, 34 Ga. App. 780, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 27

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1926

Docket16962

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.E. 542 (Morrow 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

Morrow v. State, 131 S.E. 542, 34 Ga. App. 780, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 27 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant Ben Morrow was charged with pos[781]*781sessing and selling intoxicating liquors, and a general verdict of guilty was rendered. The prosecutor swore that he bought the whiskey from the defendant, that it made him drunk, that he pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and that he did not willingly testify against the defendant, but did so to prevent being sent to the chain-gang by the ■ judge who sentenced him on the charge of drunkenness. The order of the court sentencing the prosecutor shows that the chain-gang sentence imposed was “to be served on the outside during good behavior, law observance, and attending city court of Floyd county against Ben Morrow;” thus corroborating the testimony to that effect. The attempt to impeach the prosecutor was overwhelmingly rebutted by witnesses who swore that the prosecutor’s character was good, and that he was worthy of belief under oath.

The evidence supports the verdict, which is approved by the trial judge; none of the special grounds of the motion for a new •trial shows cause for reversal; and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworlh, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant Ben Morrow was charged with pos[781]*781sessing and selling intoxicating liquors, and a general verdict of guilty was rendered. The prosecutor swore that he bought the whiskey from the defendant, that it made him drunk, that he pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and that he did not willingly testify against the defendant, but did so to prevent being sent to the chain-gang by the ■ judge who sentenced him on the charge of drunkenness. The order of the court sentencing the prosecutor shows that the chain-gang sentence imposed was “to be served on the outside during good behavior, law observance, and attending city court of Floyd county against Ben Morrow;” thus corroborating the testimony to that effect. The attempt to impeach the prosecutor was overwhelmingly rebutted by witnesses who swore that the prosecutor’s character was good, and that he was worthy of belief under oath.

The evidence supports the verdict, which is approved by the trial judge; none of the special grounds of the motion for a new •trial shows cause for reversal; and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworlh, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 542, 34 Ga. App. 780, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-state-gactapp-1926.