Case ID: ga-app_32/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodwoktii, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

15696.
    Hall v. The State.
    Decided August 8, 1924.
    Possessing intoxicating liquor; from city court of Dublin — Judge Sturgis. May 3, 1924.
    
      'W. A. D ampler, for plaintiff in error.
    
      William Brunson,, solicitor, contra.
   Bloodwoktii, J.

1. There is no merit in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial. Although the defendant made no statement, the judge charged the jury as if he had made one, but he quickly discovered his error and promptly withdrew that portion of the charge from the jury, stating to them that it had been inadvertently given.

2. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luhe, J.,, concur.