Wall v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wall v. State

72 S.E. 934, 10 Ga. App. 136, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 684

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 20, 1911

Docket3763

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 934 (Wall 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

Wall v. State, 72 S.E. 934, 10 Ga. App. 136, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 684 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

This case arose alter the passage of the act approved August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 149), under which no judgment of a trial court in a criminal case is to be reversed “for lack of proof of venue or of the time of the commission of the offense, save where the particular point has been specifically raised by a ground of the original or amended motion for a new trial.” The only point insisted on in this court is that the State did not sufficiently show the time when the [137]*137offense was committed, so as to affirmatively prove that it was within the statute of limitations; but the motion for a new trial contains no such specific ground. Hence the act cited applies, and the judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Decided November 20, 1911.

Indictment for sale of liquor; from Kabun superior court— Judge J. B. Jones.

July 7, 1911. T. L. Bynum, R. E. A. Hamby, W. S. Paris, for plaintiff in error. Robert McMillan, solicitor-general, J. G. Edwards, contra.

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

Powell, J.

This case arose alter the passage of the act approved August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 149), under which no judgment of a trial court in a criminal case is to be reversed “for lack of proof of venue or of the time of the commission of the offense, save where the particular point has been specifically raised by a ground of the original or amended motion for a new trial.” The only point insisted on in this court is that the State did not sufficiently show the time when the [137]*137offense was committed, so as to affirmatively prove that it was within the statute of limitations; but the motion for a new trial contains no such specific ground. Hence the act cited applies, and the judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Decided November 20, 1911.

Indictment for sale of liquor; from Kabun superior court— Judge J. B. Jones.

July 7, 1911. T. L. Bynum, R. E. A. Hamby, W. S. Paris, for plaintiff in error. Robert McMillan, solicitor-general, J. G. Edwards, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 934, 10 Ga. App. 136, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-state-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack