Veal v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Veal v. State

149 S.E. 328, 40 Ga. App. 256, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 114

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 23, 1929

Docket19821

StatusPublished

This text of 149 S.E. 328 (Veal 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

Veal v. State, 149 S.E. 328, 40 Ga. App. 256, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted in the city court of Dublin on an indictment (drawn under section 729 of the Penal Code of 1910) charging him (a cropper) with selling a part of the crop grown by him, without the consent of his landlord, and before the landlord had received his part of the entire crop and payment in full for all advances made to the cropper in the year the crop was raised, to aid in making it. His motion for a new trial was overruled and he obtained the writ of certiorari. Upon the hearing thereof the certiorari was overruled and he excepted.

The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial showed cause [257]*257for a reversal of the judgment in the city court, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted in the city court of Dublin on an indictment (drawn under section 729 of the Penal Code of 1910) charging him (a cropper) with selling a part of the crop grown by him, without the consent of his landlord, and before the landlord had received his part of the entire crop and payment in full for all advances made to the cropper in the year the crop was raised, to aid in making it. His motion for a new trial was overruled and he obtained the writ of certiorari. Upon the hearing thereof the certiorari was overruled and he excepted.

The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial showed cause [257]*257for a reversal of the judgment in the city court, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E. 328, 40 Ga. App. 256, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veal-v-state-gactapp-1929.