Sharpe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sharpe v. State

128 S.E. 784, 34 Ga. App. 148, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 92

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 9, 1925·No. 16412·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

Sharpe was convicted of the offense of seduction. He com-

plains: (a) that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence, and (6) that the venue was not proved. The evidence authorized the conviction, and the conviction has the approval of the trial judge. There was evidence that the crime was committed in the county alleged in [149] the indictment and in which the defendant was being tried. Eor no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 9, 1925. Enoch J. Giles, for plaintiff , in error. Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general, Saffold & Stallings, Lankford & Rogers, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Blood/worth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Sharpe was convicted of the offense of seduction. He com-

plains: (a) that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence, and (6) that the venue was not proved. The evidence authorized the conviction, and the conviction has the approval of the trial judge. There was evidence that the crime was committed in the county alleged in [149] the indictment and in which the defendant was being tried. Eor no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 9, 1925. Enoch J. Giles, for plaintiff , in error. Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general, Saffold & Stallings, Lankford & Rogers, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Blood/worth, J., concur.

Sharpe v. State, 128 S.E. 784, 34 Ga. App. 148, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

128 S.E. 784 (Sharpe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.