Segui v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Segui v. State

110 S.E. 758, 28 Ga. App. 229, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 411

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1922

Docket13172

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 758 (Segui 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

Segui v. State, 110 S.E. 758, 28 Ga. App. 229, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 411 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. There is no merit in the contention of plaintiff in error that her possession of whisky, for which she was convicted, was ascertained by an unlawful search of the officers. The record shows that the defendant went through the trial of the case without raising this question, and it is raised in the brief of her counsel in this court for the first time. Moreover, there is nothing in the record that shows that the officers did not have authority to search the premises.

2. The motion for a new trial contains the general grounds only; no error of law appears; there is evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. There is no merit in the contention of plaintiff in error that her possession of whisky, for which she was convicted, was ascertained by an unlawful search of the officers. The record shows that the defendant went through the trial of the case without raising this question, and it is raised in the brief of her counsel in this court for the first time. Moreover, there is nothing in the record that shows that the officers did not have authority to search the premises.

2. The motion for a new trial contains the general grounds only; no error of law appears; there is evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 758, 28 Ga. App. 229, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segui-v-state-gactapp-1922.