Adams v. State

165 S.E. 125, 175 Ga. 98, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 198
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 13, 1932·No. No. 8722·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The determination of all the questions raised in the record depends ujion a consideration of the evidence, and the movant has not briefed the evidence in accordance with the statute relating thereto (Civil Code of 1910, § 6093). There was not even an attempt made to abbreviate the evidence, and this court can not, under the law, consider the evidence thus brought up as a compliance with the statute requiring a brief of the evidence to be a condensed and succinct brief of the material portions of the oral testimony; and consequently the judgment of the trial court refusing a new trial must be affirmed. Smith v. Ray, 93 Ga. 253 (18 S. E. 525); Price v. High Co., 108 Ga. 145 (33 S. E. 956).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., who dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. State, 165 S.E. 125, 175 Ga. 98, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 198 (Ga. 1932).

165 S.E. 125 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blount-Hudson Chevrolet Co. v. Blount
191 S.E. 875 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Thomas v. State
170 S.E. 303 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)