TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gaskins v. State

Gaskins v. State, 88 S.E. 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 17, 1916
Docket
No. 7178
Judges
Broyles
Citations
88 S.E. 59217 Ga. App. 8071916 Ga. App. LEXIS 947
Summary
Indictment for misdemeanor; from Berrien superior court— Judge Thomas. November 27, 1915.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Broyles, J.

1. The venue was sufficiently established.

2. The third ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which complains of the admission of certain documentary evidence, can not be considered, as the evidence is not set forth in the ground, either literally or in substance, or attached thereto as an exhibit. Franklin v. Fields, 13 Ga. App. 463 ( 79 S. E. 366 ).

3. There was no error in the charge of the court complained of.

4. The trial of the defendant occurred in September, 1915, and the ordinary of Berrien county testified, without any obj'ection being raised to the evidence, that the defendant, who was a practicing physician of that county, had written eleven hundred or twelve hundred prescriptions for alcohol since January, 1915. As to whether any of the prescriptions which were issued by the defendant contained any false statement, or as to whether he obtained alcohol upon any of the prescriptions for another, and converted it to some other use, in violation of section 432 of the Penal Code, the testimony was rather vague and uncertain; but the evidence adduced, with all reasonable and legal inferences and deductions arising therefrom, was perhaps sufficient to authorize the verdict of the j’ury, and, their finding having been approved by the learned trial judge, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Bussell, O. J., absent.

W. G. Harrison, William Story, J. W. Powell, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Willces, solicitor-general, contra..

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 21919: 119172026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. Williams91 S.E. 1001 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
  2. Carson v. State98 S.E. 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
  3. Flowery Branch Gin & Oil Co. v. Shore93 S.E. 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Carson v. State98 S.E. 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
  2. Flowery Branch Gin & Oil Co. v. Shore93 S.E. 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
  3. Southern Railway Co. v. Williams91 S.E. 1001 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Franklin v. Fields & Chance, 79 S.E. 366 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list