Price v. State
108 S.E. 117, 27 Ga. App. 188, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 772
Opinion
1. Under the facts of the case, it was reversible error for the court to fail to instruct the jury upon the law of receiving stolen goods, even in the absence of a request so to charge.
2. The other grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without substantial merit.
3. The question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not passed upon.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Price v. State, 108 S.E. 117, 27 Ga. App. 188, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).
108 S.E. 117 (Price v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Barber v. Barber
360 S.E.2d 574 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1987)
Walden v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
288 S.E.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Allmond v. Mount Vernon Bank
186 S.E. 581 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Veal v. Veal
178 S.E. 456 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Hutcheson v. May
151 S.E. 657 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Colquitt v. Dye
114 S.E. 643 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)