Smith v. State
87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 480, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 716
Opinion
1. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.
2. There' was no error in this case in admitting the evidence against the [481]*481defendant, though it was obtained by an illegal search of his premises. Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 814); McAllister v. State, 17 Ga. App. 159 (86 S. E. 412).
3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. State, 87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 480, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).
87 S.E. 713 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hammock v. State
134 S.E. 121 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)