Sellers v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sellers v. State

162 S.E. 156, 44 Ga. App. 571, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 386

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sellers v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 41 Ga. App. 572 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 12, 1932·No. 21994·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of simple larceny (cattle-stealing), and his motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not eror.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness. J. A. Brahe, for plaintiif in error. B. T. Caslellow, solicitor-general, Bond Almand, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of simple larceny (cattle-stealing), and his motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not eror.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness. J. A. Brahe, for plaintiif in error. B. T. Caslellow, solicitor-general, Bond Almand, contra.

Sellers v. State, 162 S.E. 156, 44 Ga. App. 571, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

162 S.E. 156 (Sellers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.