Wobbington v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wobbington v. State

86 S.E. 417, 17 Ga. App. 267, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 328

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1915

Docket6563

StatusPublished

This text of 86 S.E. 417 (Wobbington 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

Wobbington v. State, 86 S.E. 417, 17 Ga. App. 267, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 328 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. It is never error to refuse to direct a verdict.

2. The instructions of the trial judge were adjusted to the issues and the evidence, and it was not error to omit to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to robbery by sudden snatching, for it is manifest that if robbery was committed, it was accomplished’ by force, and the indictment did not charge robbery by sudden snatching.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. -Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. It is never error to refuse to direct a verdict.

2. The instructions of the trial judge were adjusted to the issues and the evidence, and it was not error to omit to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to robbery by sudden snatching, for it is manifest that if robbery was committed, it was accomplished’ by force, and the indictment did not charge robbery by sudden snatching.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. -Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 417, 17 Ga. App. 267, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wobbington-v-state-gactapp-1915.