Williamson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williamson v. State

136 S.E. 468, 36 Ga. App. 274, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 10

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17715

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 468 (Williamson 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

Williamson v. State, 136 S.E. 468, 36 Ga. App. 274, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 10 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the particular facts of the case, as disclosed by the motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the alleged error of the judge, if error, in ruling that a named juror was competent and qualified to serve on the jury, was harmful to the defendant’s cause, this juror having been stricken by the defendant before the challenge to the jui’or was made, and it not definitely appeai-ing from the motion for a new trial that the defendant exhausted all the strikes he was entitled to.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiif in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness. James R. Thomas & Sons, for plaintiff in error. S. Thomas Memory, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the particular facts of the case, as disclosed by the motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the alleged error of the judge, if error, in ruling that a named juror was competent and qualified to serve on the jury, was harmful to the defendant’s cause, this juror having been stricken by the defendant before the challenge to the jui’or was made, and it not definitely appeai-ing from the motion for a new trial that the defendant exhausted all the strikes he was entitled to.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiif in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness. James R. Thomas & Sons, for plaintiff in error. S. Thomas Memory, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 468, 36 Ga. App. 274, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-state-gactapp-1927.