Ray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ray v. State

19 S.E.2d 777, 67 Ga. App. 270, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 365

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1942

Docket29478.

StatusPublished

This text of 19 S.E.2d 777 (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, 19 S.E.2d 777, 67 Ga. App. 270, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

M'acIntyre, J.

The defendant was convicted of selling whisky. I-Iis motion for new trial, based solely on the general grounds, was overruled and he excepted. The defendant contends that the evidence for the State did not prove the commission of the offense or that it was committed within the statute of limitations. The indictment was returnable to the February term, 1941, of the superior court of Gordon County and alleged that the offense was committed on March 15, 1939. The evidence disclosed that the offense was committed “between the first and 15th of March, somewhere along there of 1939.” Held, that the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur. *271 Stafford Broolce, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Paschall, solicit or-general, contra.

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

M'acIntyre, J.

The defendant was convicted of selling whisky. I-Iis motion for new trial, based solely on the general grounds, was overruled and he excepted. The defendant contends that the evidence for the State did not prove the commission of the offense or that it was committed within the statute of limitations. The indictment was returnable to the February term, 1941, of the superior court of Gordon County and alleged that the offense was committed on March 15, 1939. The evidence disclosed that the offense was committed “between the first and 15th of March, somewhere along there of 1939.” Held, that the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur. *271 Stafford Broolce, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Paschall, solicit or-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.E.2d 777, 67 Ga. App. 270, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-gactapp-1942.