Pennington v. State , 39 Ga. App. 526 ( 1929 )

Broyles, O. J.

The accused were convicted of manufacturing whisky. The only evidence directly connecting them with that offense was the testimony of an accomplice, and his testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence whatsoever that directly, and independently of his testimony, connected them with the crime of making whisky. It follows that the verdict was unauthorized and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.