
    O’Shields v. The State.
    A refusal to quash an indictment is no ground for granting a new trial. Even if it were, there was no error in refusing to sustain a motion to quash an indictment, made on the ground that the same was found and returned by a grand jury before whom no evidence had been introduced against the accused, the movant not sustaining the motion by evidence, nor offering any evidence for this purpose.
    June 12, 1893.
    Indictment for larceny from the person. Before Judge-Richard II. Clark. Fulton superior court. Special term, February, 1893.
    Haralson & Gowdy, for plaintiff.
    C. D. Hill, solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  