Gibbs v. State

The circumstantial evidence relied upon to convict the defendant was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt, and therefore the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Smith & Christian, for plaintiff in error,

cited: 25 Ga. App. 427; 27 Ga. App. 581; Id. 582; Id. 603.

R. JE. Dinsmore, contra,

cited: 55 Ga. 326 (6); 59 Ga. 738 (6); 73 Ga. 76 (1).