Daniel v. State

131 S.E. 296, 34 Ga. App. 783, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 32
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 12, 1926·No. 16988·Published

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. Alleged prejudicial remarks of the judge, during the trial of a ease, in the presence and hearing of the jury, are not ground for a new trial, unless a motion .to declare a mistrial on that ground was made and overruled. Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 157 (6) (92 S. E. 970). Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, ground 5 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial is without merit.

2. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no cause for a new trial, and the verdict is amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. B. T. Brocle, J. M. Lang, for plaintiff in error. G. G. Pittman, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Daniel v. State, 131 S.E. 296, 34 Ga. App. 783, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

131 S.E. 296 (Daniel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrison v. State
92 S.E. 970 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)