Pless v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pless v. State

117 S.E. 770, 30 Ga. App. 277, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 399

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 15, 1923·No. 14403·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The bill of exceptions shows that two separate cases against the same defendant were by agreement tried together; that there were two separate verdicts of guilty, two separate judgments, [278] two separate motions for a new trial, and two separate orders overruling the motions. The defendant seeks in this bill of exceptions to have both of these judgments reversed. This cannot be done. Fillingame v. State, 27 Ga. App. 764 (109 S. E. 916); Bridges v. State, 27 Ga. App. 767 (110 S. E. 412).

Decided May 15, 1923. II. A. Allen, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The bill of exceptions shows that two separate cases against the same defendant were by agreement tried together; that there were two separate verdicts of guilty, two separate judgments, [278] two separate motions for a new trial, and two separate orders overruling the motions. The defendant seeks in this bill of exceptions to have both of these judgments reversed. This cannot be done. Fillingame v. State, 27 Ga. App. 764 (109 S. E. 916); Bridges v. State, 27 Ga. App. 767 (110 S. E. 412).

Decided May 15, 1923. II. A. Allen, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Pless v. State, 117 S.E. 770, 30 Ga. App. 277, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

117 S.E. 770 (Pless v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related