Case ID: ga-app_30/html/0293-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Luke, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14433.
    Hall v. The State.
    Decided May 17, 1923.
   Per Curiam.

1. There was some evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge.

2. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial requires another hearing of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodwortli, J., concur. Lulce, J., dissents.

Indictment for rape — conviction of assault and battery; from Appling superior court — Judge Highsmith. February 34, 1933.

V. E. Padgett, for plaintiff in error.

Alvin V. Sellers, solicitor-general, contra.

Luke, J.,

dissenting. The defendant was tried upon an indictment charging rape. The jury convicted him of assault and battery. Under the evidence in this case, a verdict of assault and battery was unauthorized. It is clear from the evidence that the illicit relation of the parties was agreed to. It was, in my opinion, therefore, error to overrule the motion for a new trial.