Ganey v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Dublin — Judge Hawkins.
1Opinion of the CourtRussell, J.
The evidence was insufficient to authorize the conviction. The corpus delicti was -not established beyond a reasonable doubt. It appears, from the evidence, that the defendant has never refused to pay for the ax handle. His employer, a witness for the State, knew he was going for the ax handle and was going- to get it from the prosecutor, and consented to his going for it. It further appears that the ax handle was purchased for'the benefit of the defendant’s employer, who owned the ax in which the handle was put, and is solvent and willing to pay the fair market value for the ax handle, but…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McGee v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Busby v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Drought v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Daniel v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Farris v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957