Case ID: ga-app_29/html/0366-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14055.
    Hill v. The State.
    Decided January 10, 1923.
    Indictment for manufacture of liquor; from’ Wilkes superior court — Judge Shurley. October 7, 1922.
    
      Hugh E. Gombs, for plaintiff in error.
    
      M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

There is nothing in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial that would require the grant of a new trial; there is some evidence to support the finding of the jury; the verdict is approved by the trial judge, and the judgment must be

Affirmed.

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