
    Green vs. The State of Georgia.
    1. The verdict in this case was not contrary to law or the evidence.
    2. On the trial of a defendant charged with robbery, it appearing from the evidence of the person robbed that he had been Under the influence of liquor, or drugs contained therein, and so stupefied thereby that he really had no clear and satisfactory recollection of what did transpire on the day of the robbery, and that the court, for the purpose of arriving at once at what the witness knew, and shortening the examination, put the following inquiry to him : “ You had the money and was associating with these boys” (meaning the defendant and another), “and the next day the money was gone?” — this was not such an expression of opinion on the part of the court as to require a new trial.
    January 23, 1883.
   Crawford, Justice.

[To the report contained in the syllabus, it is necessary to add only the following: Green was indicted for the robbery of one Thornton, and was found guilty. When Thornton was placed upon the stand as a witness, it became evident that at the time of the robbery, he had been so stupefied with liquor or with drugs contained therein, that his recollection was very confused and indistinct. After he had been examined for some time, and had testified to his having been in cqmpany with defendant and another on the afternoon of the robbery, drinking with them, and having been robbed, and had also stated his want of definite recollection of the circumstances, the court said to him: “You had the money and was associating with these boys” (meaning defendant and the other), “ and the next day the money was gone? ” And this question was assigned as error.]  