History
  • No items yet
midpage
Willis v. State
126 S.E. 303
Ga. Ct. App.
1925
Check Treatment
Bloodwobtii, J.

The offense charged in the indictment being simple larceny, and the guilt of the accused being wholly dependent upon the inference arising from possession of the cow alleged to have been stolen, and this possession being shown by uneontradieted and unimpeached testimony to be consistent with his innocence of the offense charged, the conviction of the accused was unauthorized. Peeples v. State, 5 Ga. App. 706 (53 S. E. 719); Hampton v. State, 6 Ga. App. 778 (65 S. E. 816); Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107 (68 S. E. 472); Brooks v. State, 21 Ga. App. 661 (94 S. E. 810); Williams v. State, 125 Ga. 268 (54 S. E. 166).

Judgment reversed,.

Luke and Blood-worth, JJ., concur. Broyles, O. J., dissents. Allen & Pottle° Marion E. Allen, for plaintiff in error. Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, A. Y. Clement, contra.

Case Details

Case Name: Willis v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Jan 14, 1925
Citation: 126 S.E. 303
Docket Number: 15947
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.