Culberson v. State

100 S.E. 769, 24 Ga. App. 352, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 649
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Culberson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 26 Ga. App. 648
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 4, 1919·No. 10852·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

“In this ease the motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight [353]*353evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court" a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Buhe, J., concur.

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

Culberson v. State, 100 S.E. 769, 24 Ga. App. 352, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

100 S.E. 769 (Culberson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bradham v. State
94 S.E. 618 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)