Allen v. Gershon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Allen v. Gershon

91 S.E. 893, 19 Ga. App. 500, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 197

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1917

Docket7805

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 893 (Allen v. Gershon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Gershon, 91 S.E. 893, 19 Ga. App. 500, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 197 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

The order of the trial judge granting a first new trial in this case is as follows: “The within motion for new trial having been submitted to me by counsel on both sides; without argument, and after a careful consideration of the case, I ain convinced that it was error to admit the testimony of the witness W. L. Gray as follows: ‘Mr. Ruskin told me that he could not employ me, because he- had the Allen boys hired/ without stating what Allen boys, or stating whether the plaintiff was one of the Allen boys referred to or not. I am of opinion that this was mistrial [material?] error authorizing a new trial. Wherefore it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that a new trial of said 'case be and the same is hereby ordered.” The verdict obtained by the plaintiff was not demanded by the evidence, although • it is. not [501]*501without evidence to support it. Even if the admission of the testimony recited in the foregoing order was not error, the discretion of the court in granting a first new trial will not be disturbed. Civil Code of 1910, § 6204; Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 262).

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

George, J.

The order of the trial judge granting a first new trial in this case is as follows: “The within motion for new trial having been submitted to me by counsel on both sides; without argument, and after a careful consideration of the case, I ain convinced that it was error to admit the testimony of the witness W. L. Gray as follows: ‘Mr. Ruskin told me that he could not employ me, because he- had the Allen boys hired/ without stating what Allen boys, or stating whether the plaintiff was one of the Allen boys referred to or not. I am of opinion that this was mistrial [material?] error authorizing a new trial. Wherefore it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that a new trial of said 'case be and the same is hereby ordered.” The verdict obtained by the plaintiff was not demanded by the evidence, although • it is. not [501]*501without evidence to support it. Even if the admission of the testimony recited in the foregoing order was not error, the discretion of the court in granting a first new trial will not be disturbed. Civil Code of 1910, § 6204; Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 262).

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 893, 19 Ga. App. 500, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-gershon-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack