Hunter v. State , 30 Ga. App. 615 ( 1923 )

Broyles, U. J.

The motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds; the evidence, direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to return the verdict rendered, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. W. G. Post, for plaintiff in error. W. Y. Atkinson, solicitor-gen eral, contra.