Tillery v. State

25 S.E. 170, 99 Ga. 209
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 8, 1896·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

This case presents no new or important legal question; the evidence pro and cbn as to relationship between the prosecutor and one of the jurors was confused and conflicting, •and the judge was warranted in finding that the alleged relationship did not exist; the evidence did not demand a charge [210] upon, the law of involuntary manslaughter, and even if the-statement of the accused authorized a charge upon this subject, no such charge was requested; no error of law was committed at ‘the trial, and there was ample evidence to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

June 8, 1896. By two Justices. Indictment for murder. Before Judge Hart. Laurens superior court. January term, 1896. J. E. HigMoioer and H. P. Howard, for plaintiff in error. H. G. Lewis, solidtor-gmeral, and T. L. Griner,. by Anderson, Felder & Davis, contra.

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

Tillery v. State, 25 S.E. 170, 99 Ga. 209 (Ga. 1896).

25 S.E. 170 (Tillery v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. Kitchens
148 S.E. 754 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)