Tucker v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Eberhardt, Judge.
Since the ground of the demurrer and the objection to the evidence which is the basis of the amended motion for new trial are the same these must stand or fall for the same reasons.
We cannot agree that the description of the hubcaps is too indefinite to support the charge. It is true that charges of the taking of “one shovel of the value of one dollar,” (Melvin v. State, 120 Ga. 490 (48 SE 198)), or “one black leather sample case, one black fiber sample case, one tan fiber sample case . . . eighty pounds of assorted candies . . . , one book photographs of candy . . with…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ayers v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Melvin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Walthour v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Bright v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Pharr v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Martin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
- State v. TraylorCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Pippin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Bailey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984