Cohen Co. v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cohen Co. v. Brown

94 S.E. 811, 21 Ga. App. 668, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 467

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1918

Docket9337

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 811 (Cohen Co. v. Brown) 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

Cohen Co. v. Brown, 94 S.E. 811, 21 Ga. App. 668, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, P. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of -this court, and of the Supreme Court, where a new trial of a case is moved because of alleged newly discovered evidence, and the affidavit of the newly discovered witness is met by a counter-showing, the trial judge is the trior, and has a very broad discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial, and his discretion will not be controlled unless it has manifestly been abused. In the instant ease the alleged newly discovered evidence was impeaching in its character and was met by a counter-showing, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in overruling this ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The other grounds of the motion for a new trial, not -having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell JJ., concur.

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

Bboyles, P. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of -this court, and of the Supreme Court, where a new trial of a case is moved because of alleged newly discovered evidence, and the affidavit of the newly discovered witness is met by a counter-showing, the trial judge is the trior, and has a very broad discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial, and his discretion will not be controlled unless it has manifestly been abused. In the instant ease the alleged newly discovered evidence was impeaching in its character and was met by a counter-showing, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in overruling this ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The other grounds of the motion for a new trial, not -having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 811, 21 Ga. App. 668, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-co-v-brown-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack