Edwards v. State, 123 S.E. 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924). · Go Syfert
Search
Edwards v. State, 123 S.E. 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mitchell v. Mitchell (ga, 1980-02-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Mitchell v. Mitchell
Ga. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Neill v. Hill, 32 Ga. App. 381, 382 (2) ( 123 SE 30 ) (1924); 80 CJS 1289, Signatures, § 4a.
cited Cited "see" Griffith v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Neill v. Hill, 32 Ga. App. 381, 382 ( 123 SE 30 ); Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Haynie, 46 Ga. App. 522 ( 168 SE 112 ).
cited Cited "see" Beavers v. Inman
Ga. Ct. App. · 1926 · signal: see · confidence high
See Neill v. Hill, 32 Ga. App. 381 (2) ( 123 S. E. 30 ).
cited Cited "see" Bank of Emanuel v. Hall
Ga. Ct. App. · 1925 · signal: see · confidence high
See Neill v. Hill, 32 Ga. App. 381 (2) ( 123 S. E. 30 ); Redd v. Lathem, 32 Ga. App. 214 (1) ( 123 S. E. 175 ); Blackwell v. Dannenberg Co., 32 Ga. App. 307 ( 123 S. E. 179 ). 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edwards
v.
State
15274.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 15, 1924.
123 S.E. 30
1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 231
Morris, Eawhins & Wallace, for plaintiff in error., John 8. Wood, solicitor-general, contra.
Luke.
Published
Luke, J.

.1. In the trial of an indictment for assault with intent to murder, the person assaulted is • a competent witness against the defendant, although testimony other than his, adduced upon the same trial, may tend to show that his wife, though not jointly indicted with the defendant on trial, was in fact an accomplice of the defendant in the commission of the alleged offense, and that the ultimate object and purpose of both in so attempting to kill the husband was to remove an obstacle to adulterous intercourse, as practiced in the past and contemplated for the future, by and between the defendant and the wife of the witness. Penal Code (1910), § 1037 (4) ; Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 13 (15); Whitlow v. State, 74 Ga. 819 (2); Askea v. State, 75 Ga. 356 (3); Rivers v. State, 118 Ga. 42 (1) (44 S. E. 859).

(a) Such adultery not being alleged in the indictment, and not being in any manner an essential element of the offense charged, the rule applicable to proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery is not here in point.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the record discloses no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodnoorlh, J., concur.