Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Hardin

40 S.E. 738, 114 Ga. 548, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 720
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 4, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 40 S.E. 738 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Hardin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Hardin, 40 S.E. 738, 114 Ga. 548, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 720 (Ga. 1902).

Opinion

Little, J.

1. At the March term, 1901, a new trial was ordered in this case, because it appeared that the trial judge did not exercise the discretion imposed upon him by law in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. 113 Ga. 453. At the trial now under review a similar verdict was returned, and the judge in the exercise of such discretion upheld it. This being so, and there being some evidence to sustain the jury’s finding, the Supreme Court will not again interfere, though apparently a verdict for the defendant would have been more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

2. There was no error in refusing to give the charge requested.

3. Evidence of the equipment of a locomotive, its condition, the character of the headlight it carried, is admissible in evidence on the trial of a case brought to recover damages for killing a mule at night by the operation of such locomotive, as bearing on the question of negligence; and this is true notwithstanding the operation of a locomotive without an electric headlight is not of itself an act of negligence.

4. The failure of the trial judge to charge as complained of was not, in the absence of a request to do so, cause for reversal.

5. The trial judge did not err in refusing to permit defendant’s counsel to read to the jury, in his argument, an opinion rendered by this court. Under the obligation which the lawimposes on jurors, they should, under proper instructions, return a verdict on the evidence as they understand it, uninfluenced by the opinion of any other tribunal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Central of Georgia Railroad v. Sellers
201 S.E.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Barfield v. State
79 S.E.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Huckabee v. Grace
173 S.E. 744 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Southern Railway Co. v. Ray
118 S.E. 53 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Mays v. Mays
113 S.E. 154 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Georgia Land & Securities Co. v. Chapman
103 S.E. 414 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Georgia Coast & Piedmont Railroad v. Smith
95 S.E. 1017 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Glover v. State
82 S.E. 602 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Betts Co. v. Hancock
77 S.E. 77 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Thompson v. Warren
45 S.E. 912 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Dozier
45 S.E. 67 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 S.E. 738, 114 Ga. 548, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-hardin-ga-1902.