Case ID: ga_89/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bohannon v. The State.
    When the sole question in a criminal case is the credibility of the witnesses, the evidence being in direct conflict, the Supreme Court has no duty to perform except to affirm the judgment.
    June 15, 1892.
    By two Justices.
    Criminal law. Evidence. Before Judge Richard H. Clark. Douglas superior court. July term, 1891.
    Conviction of gaming; exception to the overruling of motion for a new trial. The only grounds of the motion are, that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The indictment was against James Bohannon, Jack Deavors and Dad Mitchell, and it charged that they did play and [bet] for money at a game of cards. There was but one witness for the State, Thomas J. Blair, who testified that he found the three defendants indicted and another negro sitting around a cloth spread on the ground, playing cards; on each corner of the cloth lay a quarter of a dollar; they all engaged in the playing of. the cards, and when they finished a game some one of the four would take all the four quarters up; this was repeated several times. Two witnesses, Alex. Garrett and Jack Deavors, gave testimony for the defendant in direct conflict with that for the State, and the defendant stated that he never played cards with the parties named at any time or place.
   Judgment affirmed,.

~W. A. J ames, for plaintiff' in error.

J. S. Candler, solicitor-general, contra.