Arnold v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. State

182 S.E. 423, 52 Ga. App. 79, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 49

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 5, 1935

Docket25183

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.E. 423 (Arnold v. State) 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

Arnold v. State, 182 S.E. 423, 52 Ga. App. 79, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “When a motion for new trial is made on the ground

of newly discovered evidence, it must appear by affidavit of the movant and each of his counsel that they did not know of the existence of such evidence before the trial, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence. If the newly discovered evidence is that of witnesses, affidavits as to their residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility must be adduced.” Code of 1933, § 70-205. In the instant case a ground of the motion for new trial was based on the alleged newly discovered evidence of a witness, but none of the affidavits required by the foregoing code section was submitted on the hearing of the motion. It follows that the overruling of the ground was not error.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “When a motion for new trial is made on the ground

of newly discovered evidence, it must appear by affidavit of the movant and each of his counsel that they did not know of the existence of such evidence before the trial, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence. If the newly discovered evidence is that of witnesses, affidavits as to their residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility must be adduced.” Code of 1933, § 70-205. In the instant case a ground of the motion for new trial was based on the alleged newly discovered evidence of a witness, but none of the affidavits required by the foregoing code section was submitted on the hearing of the motion. It follows that the overruling of the ground was not error.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E. 423, 52 Ga. App. 79, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-gactapp-1935.