Britten v. State
53 S.E. 99, 124 Ga. 783, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 613
Opinion
1, It has been repeatedly ruled by this court that an attack upon the charge of a court by culling therefrom isolated clauses and sentences, which, if taken alone, would be erroneous, will not be entertained when, immediately preceding or following such objectionable extracts, they are so qualified by the language of the court as to correctly state the law of the case.
2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Britten v. State, 53 S.E. 99, 124 Ga. 783, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 613 (Ga. 1906).
53 S.E. 99 (Britten v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Childs
194 S.E. 561 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Georgia Power Co. v. Jones
188 S.E. 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Neville v. National Life & Accident Insurance
135 S.E. 315 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Payne v. Allen
110 S.E. 345 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Deas
96 S.E. 267 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)