Case Name: Murphy v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1904-01-12
Citations: 119 Ga. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: Murphy v. The State.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
Murphy v. The State.
Submitted December 21, 1903.
Decided January 12, 1904.
Accusation of gaming. Before Judge Hollingsworth. City court of Fayetteville. October 21, 1903.
The affidavit averred that on September 4, 1903, in Fayette county, Murphy did commit the offense of gaming. The accusation charged, upon this affidavit, that Murphy “ did, on the 4th day of Oct., 1903, in county aforesaid, . . play and bet for money and other things of value, at a game of seven-up, skin, and other games with cards.” The accused demurred on the ground that the accusation was insufficient in that the affidavit on which it was founded was insufficient to support it, the accusation being broader and more comprehensive than the affidavit, and covering things different from those set out in the affidavit. The demurrpr was overruled, as was a motion for a new trial after verdict of guilty, the ground of the motion being that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. It appeared that, at the time and place charged, the accused and several others were discovered in a field, playing “ skin.” They had up money; and the accused was playing. When so discovered they all ran off, except the accused.
J. W. Wise, for plaintiff in error,
cited Acts 1902, p. 133, sec. 31; 112 Ga. 537; 58 Ga. 397; 117 Ga. 756.
A. O. Blalock, solicitor, contra,
cited 107 Ga. 693; 109 Ga. 572; 86 Ga. 271; 85 Ga. 570; 62 Ga. 583; 14 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. 666-7.

Opinion:
Turner, J.
L Under the act establishing the city court of Tayetteville, which act provides that " the defendants in criminal cases in said city court shad be tried on a written accusation, setting forth plainly the offense charged, founded upon the affidavit of the prosecutor," etc., the affidavit on which the accusation against the plaintiff in error was founded was sufficient. See Brown v. State, 109 Ga. 570, 572, and cit; Glass v. State, ante, 299.
2. There being evidence before the jury upon which they could well have found the defendant guilty, and the judge having on a motion for a new trial approved their finding, this court declines to order a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.