Cauley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cauley v. State

98 S.E. 103, 23 Ga. App. 322, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 108

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1919

Docket10180

StatusPublished

This text of 98 S.E. 103 (Cauley 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

Cauley v. State, 98 S.E. 103, 23 Ga. App. 322, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 108 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. It does not appear from the record that the trial judge abused' his broad discretion in refusing a continuance or a postponement of the case.

2. The 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the exclusion of "certain testimony, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

3. While several excerpts from the charge of the court are excepted to in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, these excerpts are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, but the only complaint in their brief, so far as the charge is concerned, is that the entire charge was erroneous; and there is no such exception in the amendment to the motion for a new trial. Under such circumstances the grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining of such excerpts ■ will be treated' as abandoned, and the correctness of the chai'ge as a whole will not be passed upon.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. It does not appear from the record that the trial judge abused' his broad discretion in refusing a continuance or a postponement of the case.

2. The 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the exclusion of "certain testimony, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

3. While several excerpts from the charge of the court are excepted to in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, these excerpts are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, but the only complaint in their brief, so far as the charge is concerned, is that the entire charge was erroneous; and there is no such exception in the amendment to the motion for a new trial. Under such circumstances the grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining of such excerpts ■ will be treated' as abandoned, and the correctness of the chai'ge as a whole will not be passed upon.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 103, 23 Ga. App. 322, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cauley-v-state-gactapp-1919.