Simpson v. State
This text of 34 S.E. 204 (Simpson 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.
Opinion
1. A plea in abatement to a bill of indictment, or a motion to quash the bill, alleging that two of the grand jurors who found the bill were related within the fourth degree to the prosecutor, though made before pleading to the merits, is not sustainable. Upon a review, on this point, of Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, Fisher v. State, 93 Ga. 309, and the cases cited in the former, the doctrine therein announced is adhered to and approved.
2. There was no error of law committed; the evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 S.E. 204, 110 Ga. 249, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-state-ga-1899.