Ray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ray v. State

120 S.E. 704, 31 Ga. App. 119, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 769

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1923

Docket14876

StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E. 704 (Ray 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

Ray v. State, 120 S.E. 704, 31 Ga. App. 119, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 769 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence; and, while some errors were committed upon the trial, none of them, under the particular facts of the case, requires a new trial. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Paul L. Lindsay, for plaintiff in error. Boy Dorsey, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens, contra.

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

Bboyles, C. J.

The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence; and, while some errors were committed upon the trial, none of them, under the particular facts of the case, requires a new trial. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Paul L. Lindsay, for plaintiff in error. Boy Dorsey, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 704, 31 Ga. App. 119, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-gactapp-1923.