Osterholtz v. State, 96 S.E. 1045 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918). · Go Syfert
Search
Osterholtz v. State, 96 S.E. 1045 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Osterholtz
v.
State
9851.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 14, 1918.
96 S.E. 1045
Robert L. Golding, for plaintiff in error., Walter G. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.
Bloodwoetii.
Published
Bloodwoetii, J.^

The accused was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, and this court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion for new trial, which was based on general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.