History
  • No items yet
midpage
Norman v. Young
35 Ga. App. 221
Ga. Ct. App.
1926
Check Treatment
Stephens, J.

1. Where a house in which cotton was stored was found to be open early in the morning just before day, and some of the cotton was missing, and where, leading from the house, were automobile tracks containing a peculiar impression made by the tires and which when followed by the owner of the cotton and several neighbors led to tin-home of a person where was found an automobile the tires of which had markings corresponding to the impressions in the tracks, which automobile this person admitted was his, and where, the evening before the cotton disappeared, the same person went, in an automobile, along the road which passed near the cotton-house, the facts failed to show a want of probable cause for a prosecution against him for larceny. Civil Code (1910), § 4440; Woodruff v. Doss, 20 Ga. App. 639 (93 S. E. 316).

2. In a suit against the owner of the cotton, for malicious prosecution, *222where the above-reeited facts were established by undisputed testimony, a verdict for the defendant was properly directed.

Decided March 12, 1926. S. H. Dyer, Smith & Taylor, for plaintiff. Emmett Smith, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Norman v. Young
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Mar 12, 1926
Citation: 35 Ga. App. 221
Docket Number: 16967
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.