Neal v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Neal v. State

123 S.E. 913, 32 Ga. App. 550, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 545

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 8, 1924

Docket15732

StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.E. 913 (Neal 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

Neal v. State, 123 S.E. 913, 32 Ga. App. 550, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Blood worth,. J.

1. For no reason assigned did the court err in admitting in evidence the checks of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.

2. In view of the qualifying note of the trial judge, there is no merit in that ground of the motion which alleges that the court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial.

3. When considered in connection with the remainder of the charge, there is no error in the following excerpt therefrom: “Under the law, if a person should be found in possession of a paper, a cheek that is forged, and it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that he uttered or published or attempted to pass, or did pass, such forged paper, and that he was the sole beneficiary, the only one to be benefited by such forged paper, and there are not circumstances in the case pointing to anyone, else as the forger, or anyone else who would be benefited by the circulation or passage dr uttering of such forged paper, then you would be authorized to conclude that a person in the possession of such forgery, and the person uttering and publishing or attempting to pass, either by himself or through others, was the real one who forged the paper. That is a presumption which you are authorized to draw, but you are not compelled to draw it.” Mitchell v. State, 64 Ga. 448; Womble v. State, 107 Ga. 666 (4) (33 S. E. 630).

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Blood worth,. J.

1. For no reason assigned did the court err in admitting in evidence the checks of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.

2. In view of the qualifying note of the trial judge, there is no merit in that ground of the motion which alleges that the court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial.

3. When considered in connection with the remainder of the charge, there is no error in the following excerpt therefrom: “Under the law, if a person should be found in possession of a paper, a cheek that is forged, and it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that he uttered or published or attempted to pass, or did pass, such forged paper, and that he was the sole beneficiary, the only one to be benefited by such forged paper, and there are not circumstances in the case pointing to anyone, else as the forger, or anyone else who would be benefited by the circulation or passage dr uttering of such forged paper, then you would be authorized to conclude that a person in the possession of such forgery, and the person uttering and publishing or attempting to pass, either by himself or through others, was the real one who forged the paper. That is a presumption which you are authorized to draw, but you are not compelled to draw it.” Mitchell v. State, 64 Ga. 448; Womble v. State, 107 Ga. 666 (4) (33 S. E. 630).

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 913, 32 Ga. App. 550, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack