Pierce v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pierce v. State

134 S.E. 340, 35 Ga. App. 666, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1070

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 4, 1926

Docket17490

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 340 (Pierce 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

Pierce v. State, 134 S.E. 340, 35 Ga. App. 666, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1070 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

The sole assignment of error in the bill of exceptions in this case is upon the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment. That motion was specified and sent up as part of the record. An inspection of the motion discloses that its only ground was based upon the alleged disqualification of the solicitor-general pro tem. to act in the case; and the bill of exceptions recites that this ground was expressly abandoned upon the hearing of the motion. Counsel for the plaintiff in error argues in his brief another ground why the motion should have been granted, but no such ground is contained in the motion in arrest of judgment as transmitted to this court. It follows that 'the judgment of the trial court denying the motion must be and is

Affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bboyles, C. J.

The sole assignment of error in the bill of exceptions in this case is upon the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment. That motion was specified and sent up as part of the record. An inspection of the motion discloses that its only ground was based upon the alleged disqualification of the solicitor-general pro tem. to act in the case; and the bill of exceptions recites that this ground was expressly abandoned upon the hearing of the motion. Counsel for the plaintiff in error argues in his brief another ground why the motion should have been granted, but no such ground is contained in the motion in arrest of judgment as transmitted to this court. It follows that 'the judgment of the trial court denying the motion must be and is

Affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 340, 35 Ga. App. 666, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-state-gactapp-1926.