Case ID: ga_95/html/0483-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Watson v. The State.
    Atkinson, J. — The only question properly presented for adjudication by this court being -whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and there being sufficient evidence to authorize the conviction, the refusal of a new trial will not be overruled.
    November 26,1894.
    Indictment for larceny from tbe house. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus. October term, 1894.
    Watson was charged with stealing a pair of shoes from the storehouse of Ware. He was seen to enter the store without the shoes, and to emerge therefrom with them unwrapped and under his coat. In his hand he carried a bundle containing five cents worth of calico he had bought. The shoes were not sold to him by Ware. They had on them Ware’s cost-mark. Ware had five clerks who sold shoes. Watson was arrested with one of the shoes under his arm in one pocket, and the other in his inside pocket. He claimed to have bought them from a negro for seventy-five cents. He introduced no evidence at the trial, but made a statement reiterating his claim and denying that he stole the shoes. After verdict of guilty, he moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and for alleged error in admitting testimony that he tried to sell a pair of shoes on the day in question. It does not appear what, if any, objection was made to this testimony.
    William C. Munday, Jr., by Morgan McMiohael, for plaintiff in error.
   Judgment affirmed.