History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ward v. State
21 Ga. App. 655
Ga. Ct. App.
1918
Check Treatment
Bboyles, P. J.

1. The evidence connecting the defendants with the offense charged being entirely circumstantial in its nature, and not excluding every reasonable hypothesis save that of their guilt, their conviction was unauthorized, and the court erred in overruling the motion ■ for a new trial.

2.- The foregoing ruling being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodivorth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Ward v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Jan 22, 1918
Citation: 21 Ga. App. 655
Docket Number: 9258
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.