Tharpe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tharpe v. State

100 S.E. 754, 24 Ga. App. 349, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 642

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 4, 1919

Docket10818

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 754 (Tharpe 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

Tharpe v. State, 100 S.E. 754, 24 Ga. App. 349, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The accused was indicted for making alcoholic liquors. He pleaded “former jeopardy,” alleging “that he plead guilty in the United States district court for the southern district of Georgia for the offense of violation of the internal revenue laws of the United States; . . that the offense charged is the very same offense as that he is now charged with; that the United States district court for the southern district of Georgia had full jurisdiction to try him.” The plea was properly stricken. It shows on its face that he pleaded guilty in a different jurisdiction and to an indictment which charged a violation of a Federal [350]*350statute, and to the commission of a crime wb ich is entirely different and distinct from the one for which he was indicted and tried in the State court.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The accused was indicted for making alcoholic liquors. He pleaded “former jeopardy,” alleging “that he plead guilty in the United States district court for the southern district of Georgia for the offense of violation of the internal revenue laws of the United States; . . that the offense charged is the very same offense as that he is now charged with; that the United States district court for the southern district of Georgia had full jurisdiction to try him.” The plea was properly stricken. It shows on its face that he pleaded guilty in a different jurisdiction and to an indictment which charged a violation of a Federal [350]*350statute, and to the commission of a crime wb ich is entirely different and distinct from the one for which he was indicted and tried in the State court.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 754, 24 Ga. App. 349, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tharpe-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack