Spurlin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spurlin v. State

110 S.E. 338, 28 Ga. App. 129, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 340

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 18, 1922

Docket13066

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 338 (Spurlin 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

Spurlin v. State, 110 S.E. 338, 28 Ga. App. 129, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was indicted for the offense of assault and battery. The prosecutor testified that without provocation the defendant struck him, and, in addition to having hit him with a rock, pulled out his whiskers, “ and it hurt mighty bad.” The defendant stated that the prosecutor cursed him, and that he picked up a rock and threw it at the prosecutor, but missed him, and that [130]*130the prosecutor was “making” at him with a stick, and when “ I saw that he was coming on me, I reached around with my right-hand, and pulled out his whiskers.”

There being evidence to authorize the verdict, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial, which was based only on the usual general grounds.

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 indicted for the offense of assault and battery. The prosecutor testified that without provocation the defendant struck him, and, in addition to having hit him with a rock, pulled out his whiskers, “ and it hurt mighty bad.” The defendant stated that the prosecutor cursed him, and that he picked up a rock and threw it at the prosecutor, but missed him, and that [130]*130the prosecutor was “making” at him with a stick, and when “ I saw that he was coming on me, I reached around with my right-hand, and pulled out his whiskers.”

There being evidence to authorize the verdict, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial, which was based only on the usual general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 338, 28 Ga. App. 129, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurlin-v-state-gactapp-1922.