Roy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roy v. State

140 S.E. 798, 37 Ga. App. 510, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 382

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1927

Docket18558

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 798 (Roy 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

Roy v. State, 140 S.E. 798, 37 Ga. App. 510, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment in this case contains two counts, the first charging the defendant with carrying a pistol concealed, and the second charging that he “did carry around with him on his person and did have in his manual possession, outside of his own home and place of business, a certain pistol, without first tailing out a license from the ordinary of the county of which he was a resident.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second count only.

1. Grounds of a motion for a new trial must have the unqualified approval of the judge who tried the case. Goolsby v. State, 35 Ga. App. 167 (2a) (132 S. E. 245); Jordan v. State, 153 Ga. 167 (2) (111 S. E. 417). The only special ground of the motion for a new trial in this ease is not so unqualifiedly approved, and this court can not consider it. Moreover, it was not error, under the facts of this case, for the judge to instruct the jury as follows: “I charge you, however, that the home or place of business of the defendant would not mean the home or place of business of any one else.”

2. The evidence was ample to support the finding of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment in this case contains two counts, the first charging the defendant with carrying a pistol concealed, and the second charging that he “did carry around with him on his person and did have in his manual possession, outside of his own home and place of business, a certain pistol, without first tailing out a license from the ordinary of the county of which he was a resident.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second count only.

1. Grounds of a motion for a new trial must have the unqualified approval of the judge who tried the case. Goolsby v. State, 35 Ga. App. 167 (2a) (132 S. E. 245); Jordan v. State, 153 Ga. 167 (2) (111 S. E. 417). The only special ground of the motion for a new trial in this ease is not so unqualifiedly approved, and this court can not consider it. Moreover, it was not error, under the facts of this case, for the judge to instruct the jury as follows: “I charge you, however, that the home or place of business of the defendant would not mean the home or place of business of any one else.”

2. The evidence was ample to support the finding of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 798, 37 Ga. App. 510, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

2. The evidence was ample to support the finding of the jury.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack