Tate v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tate v. State

147 S.E. 590, 39 Ga. App. 473, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 365

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1929

Docket19375

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E. 590 (Tate 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

Tate v. State, 147 S.E. 590, 39 Ga. App. 473, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence tending to connect the accused with the offense of manufacturing whisky, or with the offense of attempting to make it, was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The refusal of the court to 'grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. John B. Guerry, for plaintiff in error. . Jule Felton, solicitor-general, Hollis Fort, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence tending to connect the accused with the offense of manufacturing whisky, or with the offense of attempting to make it, was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The refusal of the court to 'grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. John B. Guerry, for plaintiff in error. . Jule Felton, solicitor-general, Hollis Fort, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 590, 39 Ga. App. 473, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-state-gactapp-1929.