Copeland v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Copeland v. State

153 S.E. 609, 41 Ga. App. 567, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 991

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1930

Docket20538

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 609 (Copeland 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

Copeland v. State, 153 S.E. 609, 41 Ga. App. 567, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 991 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

Applications for a new trial on tlie ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere if there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion set forth in the verdict. “Relatively to the revising powers of this court, the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of witnesses.” Rome Railroad Co. v. Barnett, 94 Ga. 446 (5) (20 S. E. 355). “The right of the jury to settle disputed issues of fact is supreme and exclusive.” Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219 (58 S. E. 218). Since it is the province of the jury to pass upon the facts of the case and the credibility of the witnesses, we can not say that they were not authorized to arrive at the conclusion set forth in their verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwortii, J.

Applications for a new trial on tlie ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere if there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion set forth in the verdict. “Relatively to the revising powers of this court, the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of witnesses.” Rome Railroad Co. v. Barnett, 94 Ga. 446 (5) (20 S. E. 355). “The right of the jury to settle disputed issues of fact is supreme and exclusive.” Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219 (58 S. E. 218). Since it is the province of the jury to pass upon the facts of the case and the credibility of the witnesses, we can not say that they were not authorized to arrive at the conclusion set forth in their verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 609, 41 Ga. App. 567, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack