Court Opinion

ID: 5626934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:56:32.000011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:39.037933
License: Public Domain

MacIntyre, J.
The special grounds of the motion for new trial are abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, save the guilt of the accused. Whittemore v. State, 36 Ga. App. 299 (136 S. E. 806); Lamb v. State, 36 Ga. App. 306 (136 S. E. 306); Wynn v. State, 38 Ga. App. 262 (143 S. E. 599); Williams v. State, 41 Ga. App. 351 (152 S. E. 911); Johnson v. State, 41 Ga. App. 327 (152 S. E. 920); Craig v. State, 41 Ga. App. 225 (152 S. E. 494); Cook v. State, 33 Ga. App. 571 (2) (127 S. E. 156); Hale v. State, 50 *536Ga. App. 99 (176 S. E. 919). The case of Wright v. State, 48 Ga. App. 302 (172 S. E. 687), is differentiated on. its facts from the present case.
Decided March 17, 1938.

Judgment affii-med.

Broyles, O. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

J. W. lennard, O. L. Harris, for plaintiff in error.
Allan 0. Garden, solicitor-general, contra.