Arnold v. Stevens

Supreme Court of Georgia

Arnold v. Stevens

77 S.E. 579, 139 Ga. 495, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 484

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 26, 1913·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Rise, C. J.

If the court erred in the admission of certain alleged irrelevant and immaterial evidence, it was not of such character as to require the grant of a new trial.

The court did not err in merely failing to instruct the jury as indicated in one of the grounds of the motion for new trial.

There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Rise, C. J.

If the court erred in the admission of certain alleged irrelevant and immaterial evidence, it was not of such character as to require the grant of a new trial.

The court did not err in merely failing to instruct the jury as indicated in one of the grounds of the motion for new trial.

There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Arnold v. Stevens, 77 S.E. 579, 139 Ga. 495, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 484 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

77 S.E. 579 (Arnold v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related