Barber v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barber v. State

102 S.E. 879, 25 Ga. App. 242, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 709

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1920

Docket11259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 879 (Barber 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

Barber v. State, 102 S.E. 879, 25 Ga. App. 242, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

“ In this case the motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but when there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 . S. E. 618), and cit. See also Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

“ In this case the motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but when there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 . S. E. 618), and cit. See also Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 879, 25 Ga. App. 242, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack