Smith v. State

111 S.E. 213, 28 Ga. App. 346, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 498

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 Ga. App. 654 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 7, 1922·No. 13156·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing liquor. The evidence authorized the conviction and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge.

The assignment of error upon the court’s refusal to continue the case does not show an abuse of that discretion which the law grants to the judge.

The assignment of error upon the form of the verdict is without merit. The defendant received the minimum punishment for the offense of which he was convicted.

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.

The defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing liquor. The evidence authorized the conviction and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge.

The assignment of error upon the court’s refusal to continue the case does not show an abuse of that discretion which the law grants to the judge.

The assignment of error upon the form of the verdict is without merit. The defendant received the minimum punishment for the offense of which he was convicted.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Smith v. State, 111 S.E. 213, 28 Ga. App. 346, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

111 S.E. 213 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.