¶1dissenting. I think the set of harness, as described in the indictment, was sufficiently identified by the evidence. There was no variance between the description given of the harness in the indictment and the description in the evidence, and there could be no reasonable mistake as to the identity.
13 Ga. App. 15
Moore v. State
Decided June 25, 1913
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1969
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1913-06-25
View the full empirical analysis of this case →