Scott v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Scott v. State

46 S.E. 637, 119 Ga. 425, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 851

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 12, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 S.E. 637 (Scott v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. State, 46 S.E. 637, 119 Ga. 425, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 851 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Lamar, J.

Personal property was stolen, and found in the possession of a witness who testified that he had obtained it from the defendant shortly after it was missed by the owner. The defendant claimed that he purchased it from one S., which the latter on oath denied. Another witness testified that he saw the defendant with the same soon after the loss, endeavoring to sell it for very much less thau the real value. The recent possession of the stolen property, coupled with the false statement of the accused as to the person from whom he had obtained it, and the absence of any testimony contradicting that offered by the State, was sufficient to sustain the verdict; and there being no error of law assigned, no reason is presented why a new trial should be granted.

tTudgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

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

Lamar, J.

Personal property was stolen, and found in the possession of a witness who testified that he had obtained it from the defendant shortly after it was missed by the owner. The defendant claimed that he purchased it from one S., which the latter on oath denied. Another witness testified that he saw the defendant with the same soon after the loss, endeavoring to sell it for very much less thau the real value. The recent possession of the stolen property, coupled with the false statement of the accused as to the person from whom he had obtained it, and the absence of any testimony contradicting that offered by the State, was sufficient to sustain the verdict; and there being no error of law assigned, no reason is presented why a new trial should be granted.

tTudgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.E. 637, 119 Ga. 425, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack