unquestioned rule in Georgia

1997In the case sub judice, the appellant was allowed a thorough and sifting cross-examination and the trial court exercised its discretion in limiting, not denying, areas of inquiry, which Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra at 679-680, 106 S.Ct. at 1435-1436 , held was permissible.

1979See, e.g., Clenney v. State, 229 Ga. 561 (4) ( 192 SE2d 907 ); Fowler v. State, 132 Ga. App. 812 ( 209 SE2d 255 ); Harrison v. State, 136 Ga. App. 71 (2) ( 220 SE2d 77 ).

1979See, e.g., Clenney v. State, 229 Ga. 561 (4) ( 192 SE2d 907 ); Fowler v. State, 132 Ga. App. 812 ( 209 SE2d 255 ); Harrison v. State, 136 Ga. App. 71 (2) ( 220 SE2d 77 ).

1979See, e.g., Clenney v. State, 229 Ga. 561 (4) ( 192 SE2d 907 ); Fowler v. State, 132 Ga. App. 812 ( 209 SE2d 255 ); Harrison v. State, 136 Ga. App. 71 (2) ( 220 SE2d 77 ).

1979See, e.g., Clenney v. State, 229 Ga. 561 (4) ( 192 SE2d 907 ); Fowler v. State, 132 Ga. App. 812 ( 209 SE2d 255 ); Harrison v. State, 136 Ga. App. 71 (2) ( 220 SE2d 77 ).

1977Rogers v. Atkinson, 1 Ga. 12, 20 ; Lyon v. Patterson, 138 Ga. App. 816 ( 227 SE2d 423 ).

1977Rogers v. Atkinson, 1 Ga. 12, 20 ; Lyon v. Patterson, 138 Ga. App. 816 ( 227 SE2d 423 ).

1977Rogers v. Atkinson, 1 Ga. 12, 20 ; Lyon v. Patterson, 138 Ga. App. 816 ( 227 SE2d 423 ).

1953It was, however, held as a matter of law in McMullan v. The Kroger Co., 84 Ga. App. 195 ( 65 S. E. 2d, 420 ), that one emerging from another store of the same defendant, likewise holding a bag of groceries in front of him in such fashion as to obscure his vision, failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and such failure was the proximate cause of his tripping and falling over an iron railing about five feet long and six inches high.

1953It was, however, held as a matter of law in McMullan v. The Kroger Co., 84 Ga. App. 195 ( 65 S. E. 2d, 420 ), that one emerging from another store of the same defendant, likewise holding a bag of groceries in front of him in such fashion as to obscure his vision, failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and such failure was the proximate cause of his tripping and falling over an iron railing about five feet long and six inches high.

1948In O’Neal v. State, 10 Ga. App. 474 (1) ( 73 S. E. 696 ), it is said: “In an indictment for the offense of cheating and swindling 'by obtaining money through false and fraudulent statements and representations, the ownership of the money thus obtained and the name of the person cheated and defrauded should be stated; and the proof in support of these essential allegations must be in strict conformity therewith; otherwise the variance will be fatal.” This principle is also announced in Oliver v. State, 15 Ga. App. 452 (2) ( 83 S. E. 641 ), and in 1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, p. 872, § 646, c

1948In O’Neal v. State, 10 Ga. App. 474 (1) ( 73 S. E. 696 ), it is said: “In an indictment for the offense of cheating and swindling 'by obtaining money through false and fraudulent statements and representations, the ownership of the money thus obtained and the name of the person cheated and defrauded should be stated; and the proof in support of these essential allegations must be in strict conformity therewith; otherwise the variance will be fatal.” This principle is also announced in Oliver v. State, 15 Ga. App. 452 (2) ( 83 S. E. 641 ), and in 1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, p. 872, § 646, c

1948In O’Neal v. State, 10 Ga. App. 474 (1) ( 73 S. E. 696 ), it is said: “In an indictment for the offense of cheating and swindling 'by obtaining money through false and fraudulent statements and representations, the ownership of the money thus obtained and the name of the person cheated and defrauded should be stated; and the proof in support of these essential allegations must be in strict conformity therewith; otherwise the variance will be fatal.” This principle is also announced in Oliver v. State, 15 Ga. App. 452 (2) ( 83 S. E. 641 ), and in 1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, p. 872, § 646, c

1948In O’Neal v. State, 10 Ga. App. 474 (1) ( 73 S. E. 696 ), it is said: “In an indictment for the offense of cheating and swindling 'by obtaining money through false and fraudulent statements and representations, the ownership of the money thus obtained and the name of the person cheated and defrauded should be stated; and the proof in support of these essential allegations must be in strict conformity therewith; otherwise the variance will be fatal.” This principle is also announced in Oliver v. State, 15 Ga. App. 452 (2) ( 83 S. E. 641 ), and in 1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, p. 872, § 646, c

1945Counsel for the plaintiff in error contend that the majority opinion in Holyoke Power Co. v. Writing Paper Co., 300 U. S. 324 (57 Sup. Ct. 485, 81 L. ed. 678), in upholding an act of Congress (31 U. S. C.

1936Pennie v. Reis (1889), 132 U. S. 464 , 33 L. ed. 426, 10 Sup. Ct. 149; Dale v. Governor [3 Stew.