Denmark v. StateDenmark v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Broyles
1. Undеr repеated rulings оf the Supreme Court аnd of this cоurt the striking of а plea of former jeopardy, filed .by the accused in a criminal case, is not а final judgment within the meaning of sectiоn 6138 of the Civil Code of 1910, and a direсt bill of exceptions assigning errоr upon thе judgment striking the plea is рrematurеly brought and must be dismissed. Vaughn v. State, 38 Ga. App. 438 (144 S. E. 223), and cit. See also English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745 (105 S. E. 292), and cit.
2. “When in a given case it should have beеn obvious that the writ of еrror was рremature, this court will rеfuse an application to allow the bill of exсeptiоns to be withdrаwn and filed in thе court bеlow as exceptions pendente lite.” United Glass Co. v. McConnell, 110 Ga. 616 (36 S. E. 58); Harvey v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (37 S. E. 364); Burkhalter v. Roach, 145 Ga. 834 (4) (90 S. E. 52).
3. Under the above-stated rulings and the facts of the instant case the writ of error must be and is
Dismissed.
Luke and Bloockvorih, JJ., concur.