History
  • No items yet
midpage
Thomas v. State
35 Ga. App. 402
Ga. Ct. App.
1926
Check Treatment
Luke, J.

1. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt.

2. Ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not having *403been, approved by the trial court, can not be considered by this court. The remaining special grounds of the motion do not require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion.

Decided May 12, 1926. Rehearing denied July 13, 1926. Hugh E. Gombs, for plaintiff in error. M. L. Fells, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., wnd Bloodworth, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Thomas v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: May 12, 1926
Citation: 35 Ga. App. 402
Docket Number: 17280
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.