Baugh v. State
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bloodworti-i, J.
“The circumstantial evidence introduced by the prosecution was purely negative in its character, and the inference of the defendant’s guilt, which might have arisen from this negative testimony, was so rebutted by positive proof, not inconsistent therewith, that he had earned and had received a sufficient amount of money to maintain himself, that the verdict finding him guilty of vagrancy was not authorized by law, and a new trial should have been granted.” Leonard v. State, 5 Ga. App. 494 ( 63 S. E. 530 ). See Jacobs v. State, 1 Ga. App. 519 ( 57 S. E. 1063 ); Mooney v. State, 32 Ga. App. 448 ( 123 S. E. 734 ), and cases cited. Under the rulings in the foregoing cases, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.