Patterson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Patterson v. State

120 S.E. 34, 31 Ga. App. 154, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 794

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 14, 1923·No. 14825·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was tried upon an indictment charging seduction, and was convicted of fornication. He moved for a new trial upon the grounds, (a) that the evidence did not authorize the verdict, and (6) that the court erred in admitting a certain letter in evidence. There was no error in admitting the letter in evidence (see Arnold v. Adams, 4 Ga. App. 56 (2), 60 S. E. 815), and the defendant’s conviction was authorized by the evi[155] deuce. See Hopper v. Skate, 54 Ga. 389; Boggs v. State, 11 Ga. App. 92 (74 S. E. 716). It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was tried upon an indictment charging seduction, and was convicted of fornication. He moved for a new trial upon the grounds, (a) that the evidence did not authorize the verdict, and (6) that the court erred in admitting a certain letter in evidence. There was no error in admitting the letter in evidence (see Arnold v. Adams, 4 Ga. App. 56 (2), 60 S. E. 815), and the defendant’s conviction was authorized by the evi[155] deuce. See Hopper v. Skate, 54 Ga. 389; Boggs v. State, 11 Ga. App. 92 (74 S. E. 716). It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Patterson v. State, 120 S.E. 34, 31 Ga. App. 154, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

120 S.E. 34 (Patterson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related