
    ROBERSON v. THE STATE.
    The evidence being insufficient to authorize a finding of the offense of rape, a new trial should have been granted. Beck, P. J., dissents.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1178, n. 63; 17 C. J. p. 252, n. 16.
    Rape, 33 Cye. p. 1486, n. 12.
    No. 6194.
    December 13, 1927.
    Rape. Before Judge Meldrim. Chatham superior court. July 15, 1927.
    IF. H. Bedgood and Aaron Kravitch, for plaintiff in error.
    
      George M. Napier, attorney-general, Walter O. Hartridge, solicitor-general, T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, and Julian Hartridge, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant in this case was tried under an indictment charging him with the offense of rape. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, and fixed the punishment at a minimum of nineteen and a half years and a maximum of twenty years. A motion for new trial was made upon the usual general grounds., and after hearing the same the court overruled the motion, and Roberson sued out a bill of exceptions to this court. There is not sufficient evidence in this case of the defendant’s guilt to authorize a jury to return a verdict of guilty of the offense charged; and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial based upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except

Beck, P. J.,

dissenting. The guilt of the defendant, under the evidence, was a question for the jury; and a verdict of guilty having been returned, and the trial court having refused a new trial, this court should not interfere.  