Ward v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ward v. State

133 S.E. 749, 35 Ga. App. 502, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 951

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket17342

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 749 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 133 S.E. 749, 35 Ga. App. 502, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 951 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the rulings in Cowart v. State, 33 Ga. App. 122 (125 S. E. 770), and Rhodes v. State, 33 Ga. App. 827 (128 S. E. 217), this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the trial judge erred in ruling that the accused, by his statement to the jury (in which he denied ever having sold any whisky), had put in issue his general character as to selling whisky, and in permitting the State thereafter to introduce rebuttal evidence which tended to show that he had sold whisky on previous occasions.

[503]*503Decided June 15, 1926. Hunter & Duly, for plaintiff in error.

2. The remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial show no harmful error, and the verdict was authorized by the evidence.

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.

1. Under the rulings in Cowart v. State, 33 Ga. App. 122 (125 S. E. 770), and Rhodes v. State, 33 Ga. App. 827 (128 S. E. 217), this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the trial judge erred in ruling that the accused, by his statement to the jury (in which he denied ever having sold any whisky), had put in issue his general character as to selling whisky, and in permitting the State thereafter to introduce rebuttal evidence which tended to show that he had sold whisky on previous occasions.

[503]*503Decided June 15, 1926. Hunter & Duly, for plaintiff in error.

2. The remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial show no harmful error, and the verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 749, 35 Ga. App. 502, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack