Sweat v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
Criminal law. Robbery. Venue. Practice. Evidence. Before Judge Atkinson. Ware county. At chambers, James and Randall Sweat were indicted for robbery, alleged to have been committed upon George Snider on August 19, 1889, in Ware county. They were tried in November, 1889, and found guilty. Their motion for a new trial was overruled, and they excepted. Snider, the prosecutor, was a witness for the State.
Read the full summary
Criminal law. Robbery. Venue. Practice. Evidence. Before Judge Atkinson. Ware county. At chambers, James and Randall Sweat were indicted for robbery, alleged to have been committed upon George Snider on August 19, 1889, in Ware county. They were tried in November, 1889, and found guilty. Their motion for a new trial was overruled, and they excepted. Snider, the prosecutor, was a witness for the State. The material part of his testimony was as follows: “On the 19th of August I was picking cotton, and Randall Sweat and Proff Taylor came in the cotton-patch and arrested me without any warrant or…
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
1. “Bobbery is the wrongful, fraudulent and violent taking of money, goods or chattels from the person of another by force or intimidation, without the consent of the owner.” Code, §4389. The indictment charged robbery by both foi’ce and intimidation. The verdict found the accused guilty of robbery by intimidation. Did the facts proved in behalf of the State, accepting as true all the evidence of the principal witness, embrace the necessary legal elements of the offence found? The material evidence of this witness, or the full substance of it, *321ma,y be seen by reference…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. HargisSupreme Court of Georgia · 2014
- State v. StephensArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- State v. ParsonsWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Cartier Drug Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1935
- People v. BodkinIllinois Supreme Court · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.