No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.
Per Curiam.
The only complaint in this case is based upon the general ground of the motion for a netv trial, on the contention that the verdict finding the accused guilty is, for the absence of sufficient evidence to authorize the conviction, contrary to law. The evidence of the accomplice ivas sufficiently corroborated to authorize the conviction of the accused, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a neiv trial. Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except
Russell, C. J.,
dissenting. To my mind there is, as to the present defendant, no circumstance corroborating the testimony of the accomplice, of the evidential character required by the ruling of this court in Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106, and numerous deciions following it; no circumstance which, independently of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to show the guilt of the accused. I am therefore of the opinion that the judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
