Hampton v. State ( 1925 )

Bloodworth, J.

In each of these cases the conviction was dependent upon circumstantial evidence. In neither of them was the evidence sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt j>i the accused. The refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgments reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. M. C. Few, for plaintiff in error. Joseph B. Dulce, solicitor-general, contra.