Phœnix v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Phœnix v. State

113 S.E. 42, 29 Ga. App. 33, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 32

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1922

Docket13678

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E. 42 (Phœnix 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

Phœnix v. State, 113 S.E. 42, 29 Ga. App. 33, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction.

2. The special ground of the motion for a new trial falls within the rule announced in Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511 (28 S. E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269). The Supreme Court having adhered in other cases to the ruling in the Williams case, the request to certify this case to the Supreme Court, in order that the decision in that case may be reviewed, is not granted. See Martin v. State, 148 Ga. 406 (96 S. E. 882). The defendant may by certiorari present the question to the Supreme Court.

[34]*34Decided July 25, 1922. Air am Levy, for plaintiff in error. W. Inman Curry, solicitor, contra.

3. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction.

2. The special ground of the motion for a new trial falls within the rule announced in Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511 (28 S. E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269). The Supreme Court having adhered in other cases to the ruling in the Williams case, the request to certify this case to the Supreme Court, in order that the decision in that case may be reviewed, is not granted. See Martin v. State, 148 Ga. 406 (96 S. E. 882). The defendant may by certiorari present the question to the Supreme Court.

[34]*34Decided July 25, 1922. Air am Levy, for plaintiff in error. W. Inman Curry, solicitor, contra.

3. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 42, 29 Ga. App. 33, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phnix-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

1. The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction.

3. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack