Shaw v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shaw v. State

16 S.E.2d 443, 65 Ga. App. 754, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 390

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1941

Docket29011.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 443 (Shaw 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

Shaw v. State, 16 S.E.2d 443, 65 Ga. App. 754, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

This defendant was.convicted in the criminal court of Pulton County of the offense of operating a lottery known as the “number game.” A writ of certiorari was issued which, on the hearing, was overruled. The assignments of error are on the general grounds.

There were three witnesses who testified positively as to the defendant’s participation in the offense of operating a lottery as charged in the accusation, on the particular date named as well as •on other occasions. In fact, counsel for the defendant state in their brief in this court: “We do not contend that there is no evidence to support the conviction, but we do insist that the facts and circumstances which surround the entire transaction ‘smells to high heaven’ and looks like bribery and perjury.”

As to such critical inferences in argument, the basis of which is not clearly revealed by the record of the evidence before us, this court is without authority to deal. It is true there was some impeaching testimony, offered by the defendant directly and circumstantially. The trial judge repudiated it. The judge of the superior court approved the finding of the lower court. We find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

This defendant was.convicted in the criminal court of Pulton County of the offense of operating a lottery known as the “number game.” A writ of certiorari was issued which, on the hearing, was overruled. The assignments of error are on the general grounds.

There were three witnesses who testified positively as to the defendant’s participation in the offense of operating a lottery as charged in the accusation, on the particular date named as well as •on other occasions. In fact, counsel for the defendant state in their brief in this court: “We do not contend that there is no evidence to support the conviction, but we do insist that the facts and circumstances which surround the entire transaction ‘smells to high heaven’ and looks like bribery and perjury.”

As to such critical inferences in argument, the basis of which is not clearly revealed by the record of the evidence before us, this court is without authority to deal. It is true there was some impeaching testimony, offered by the defendant directly and circumstantially. The trial judge repudiated it. The judge of the superior court approved the finding of the lower court. We find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E.2d 443, 65 Ga. App. 754, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack