Smith v. State

108 S.E. 137, 27 Ga. App. 293, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 839

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 Ga. App. 76 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 12, 1921·No. 12456·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The charge of the court was a correct presentation of the law applicable to the facts of the case; and if the defendant desired any fuller or more specific instructions, he should have so requested the court to charge.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and for no reason assigned was it error for the court to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and for no reason assigned was it error for the court to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Smith v. State, 108 S.E. 137, 27 Ga. App. 293, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

108 S.E. 137 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.