Ragland v. State
2 Ga. App. 492
Ga. Ct. App.
1907
Check Treatment

Concurrence Opinion

Powell, J.,

specially concurring. I think that the circumstances introduced by the State, tending to show that the burning was not accidental but was felonious, -were sufficient to give “scope for legitimate reason*493ing by the jury,” and therefore sufficient to support the verdict as to that point; but I concur with the majority of the court in holding that the circumstances by which the State claims to have connected the defendant with the crime are too wholly inconclusive to justify a verdict of guilty.

Indictment for arson, from Campbell superior court — Judge Roan. May 20, 1907. Argued’ July 18, Decided September 19, 1907. J. H. Longino, for plaintiff in error. William Schley Howard, solicitor-general, contra.



Lead Opinion

Hill, C. J.

In cases of alleged arson, where nothing appears but the burning, th'e law presumes that the fire was the result of accident or some providential cause, and the burden is on the prosecution to overcome this legal presumption and prove beyond a reasonable doubt .the existence of a criminal design.

In the opinion of a majority of this court, the facts and circumstances in the record do not even tend to show that the fire was a felonious one; and the verdict is without legal support,-and must be set aside and a new trial ordered. Judgment reversed.