Biggers v. State

1. In the motion for a new trial it is contended that the court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial on the ground that one of the State’s witnesses “stated before the jury and in the hearing of the court and jury that while he did not know of his personal knowledge the defendant, George Biggers, stole the oats, yet information he had received upon investigation pointed to defendant as the leading party in the stealing of the oats, and that he was satisfied that George Biggers, the defendant, was one of the persons who had been stealing oats from him.” If there had been any room for…