
    Thomas v. The State.
    Submitted January 21,
    Decided February 4, 1902.
   Little, J.

No evidence appears in the record which is sufficient to establish a legal conclusion that the plaintiff in error was guilty of the offense with which he was charged. Therefore a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

Indictment for fornication. Before Judge Janes. Haralson superior court. December 19, 1901.

W. R. Hutcheson and 2?. S. <& E. E. Griffith, for plaintiff in error.

W. T. Roberts, solicitor-general, contra.  