Legal Opinion

Hix v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 8, 1927No. 17799Published

1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.

While the jury in this case could have taken as true the defendant’s statement that he was_ authorized by the prosecutrix to sell her cow, and that he did so, and failed to account for the proceeds of the sale because of his inability to find the prosecutrix, yet they declined to do so, and, as they had the right to do, accepted as true the testimony of the prosecutrix that the defendant borrowed the cow for the ostensible purpose of procuring milk for a sick baby, and, without the knowledge or consent of the lender, sold the cow, and failed to account for the proceeds of the sale. Viewing…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rice v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  2. Munn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
  3. Maxwell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API