Nobles v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nobles v. State

91 S.E. 435, 19 Ga. App. 330, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 109

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1917

Docket7885

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 435 (Nobles 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

Nobles v. State, 91 S.E. 435, 19 Ga. App. 330, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 109 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

B. E. Nobles was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and filed a motion for new trial. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in not charging the jury the written request of the defendant, giving him the benefit of a charge to this effect: ‘Gentlemen of the jury, I further charge you, where more than two quarts of whisky is found in a buggy occupied or driven by two or more persons, it would not be prima facie evidence that all of the whisky belonged to one of the parties.” The trial court’s approval of grounds of the motion for a new trial was in the following terms, to wit: “The averments of fact contained in the above motion are hereby approved as true, except that I do not remember the request to charge having been tendered during the trial. Mr. Kea, counsel for the defendant, however swears that he did present it.” The ground assigning error upon the court’s refusal to charge is not approved by the trial court as required by section 6090 of the Civil Code of 1910. Landrum v. Landrum, 145 Ga. 307 (89 S. E. 201).

The other assignments of error, urged by counsel for the plaintiff in error in his brief, are without merit, and the evidence fully authorized the verdict..

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and George, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

B. E. Nobles was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and filed a motion for new trial. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in not charging the jury the written request of the defendant, giving him the benefit of a charge to this effect: ‘Gentlemen of the jury, I further charge you, where more than two quarts of whisky is found in a buggy occupied or driven by two or more persons, it would not be prima facie evidence that all of the whisky belonged to one of the parties.” The trial court’s approval of grounds of the motion for a new trial was in the following terms, to wit: “The averments of fact contained in the above motion are hereby approved as true, except that I do not remember the request to charge having been tendered during the trial. Mr. Kea, counsel for the defendant, however swears that he did present it.” The ground assigning error upon the court’s refusal to charge is not approved by the trial court as required by section 6090 of the Civil Code of 1910. Landrum v. Landrum, 145 Ga. 307 (89 S. E. 201).

The other assignments of error, urged by counsel for the plaintiff in error in his brief, are without merit, and the evidence fully authorized the verdict..

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and George, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 435, 19 Ga. App. 330, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nobles-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack