Stanley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanley v. State

10 S.E.2d 766, 63 Ga. App. 258, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 51

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1940

Docket28575.

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.E.2d 766 (Stanley 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

Stanley v. State, 10 S.E.2d 766, 63 Ga. App. 258, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted, in the criminal court of Eulton County, of the offense of operating a lottery known *259 as the “number game.” Subsequently his petition for certiorari was overruled by a judge of the superior court, and to that judgment he excepted. The evidence contained in the petition for certiorari, together with the additional evidence set fórth in the untraversed answer of the trial judge, amply authorized the verdict. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was not wholly cdreumstantial, since it showed a confession made by him to the arresting officers '“without any hope of reward or threats of duress of any kind.” Furthermore, it does not appear from the petition for certiorari that the evidence as to said confession was objected to. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted, in the criminal court of Eulton County, of the offense of operating a lottery known *259 as the “number game.” Subsequently his petition for certiorari was overruled by a judge of the superior court, and to that judgment he excepted. The evidence contained in the petition for certiorari, together with the additional evidence set fórth in the untraversed answer of the trial judge, amply authorized the verdict. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was not wholly cdreumstantial, since it showed a confession made by him to the arresting officers '“without any hope of reward or threats of duress of any kind.” Furthermore, it does not appear from the petition for certiorari that the evidence as to said confession was objected to. The overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 766, 63 Ga. App. 258, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-state-gactapp-1940.