Case ID: ga-app_36/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lxjke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17706.
    Durrence v. The State.
    Decided December 14, 1926.
    Possessing liquor; from McIntosh superior court — Judge Sheppard. September 18, 1926.
    
      H. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. Saxton Daniel, solicitor-general, contra.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1180, n. 74; 17 C. J. p. 252, n. 16; p. 271, n. 41.
   Lxjke, J.

There was ample evidence to authorize the conviction of the accused, and the verdict has the approval of the trial judge. Neither of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, the one assigning error upon an excerpt from the charge of the court, and the other based upon newly discovered evidence, requires a reversal. The defendant has had a legal trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.