Holcombe v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
Indictment, for forgery, in Eayette superior court. Tried before Judge Bull, September Term, 1858. The plaintiff’ in error was indicted and found guilty of forgery. He moved for a new trial on the following grounds: 1st. Because the verdict was contrary to evidence. 2nd. Because the verdict was contrary to law. 3rd.
Read the full summary
Indictment, for forgery, in Eayette superior court. Tried before Judge Bull, September Term, 1858. The plaintiff’ in error was indicted and found guilty of forgery. He moved for a new trial on the following grounds: 1st. Because the verdict was contrary to evidence. 2nd. Because the verdict was contrary to law. 3rd. Because the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court, in this, that the court charged, that the presumption of guilt arising from the possession, by defendant, of the alleged forged deed at any particular time, might be rebutted by shewing that another person had possession…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.,
delivering the opinion.
There are but two exceptions in this case; one the refusal of the judge to permit Holliday to testify as to the contents of the letter he wrote to Judge Whitaker, and the other that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and the charge of the court.
1. As to the first, we see nothing to vary this ease from the ordinary rule of evidence, that while it was allowable for the witness to state the fact that he had written a letter, yet he could not go further and testify as to the contents, unless the foundation was first laid to let in this…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
- Sheffield v. Bainbridge Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Sheffield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963