Whittemore v. State

136 S.E. 806, 36 Ga. App. 299, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 34
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 11, 1927·No. 17756·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Though the evidence upon which the conviction rests is circumstantial, it is sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.

2. The evidence as to the finding of a still and eight hundred gallons of. mash three quarters of a mile from the defendant’s house, when taken in connection with the other evidence in the case, was not inadmissible. See Trentham v. State, 22 Ga. App. 134 (95 S. E. 538), and cit. Moreover, the same evidence was adduced from another witness without objection.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on accomit of illness. S. h. Dyer, for plaintiff in error. Stanford Arnold, solicitor, contra.

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

Whittemore v. State, 136 S.E. 806, 36 Ga. App. 299, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

136 S.E. 806 (Whittemore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walker v. State
82 S.E.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Corbin v. State
67 S.E.2d 478 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Aikens v. State
196 S.E. 263 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)