Darby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Darby v. State

100 S.E. 656, 24 Ga. App. 269, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 549

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 10, 1919

Docket10666

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 656 (Darby 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

Darby v. State, 100 S.E. 656, 24 Ga. App. 269, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The grant or refusal of an extraordinary motion for a new trial, based upon the ground of newly discovered testimony, rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and this court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, where the newly discovered evidence is largely impeaching and cumulative in character, and where it does not appear that such an extraordinary state of facts was shown by the affidavits submitted upon the hearing of the extraordinary motion as would probably produce a different result if a new trial should be granted. Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288); Thomas v. State, 19 Ga. App. 242 (91 S. E. 287).

2. It does not appear from the record that the trial judge, in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial, abused, or failéd to exercise, the discretion vested in him.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The grant or refusal of an extraordinary motion for a new trial, based upon the ground of newly discovered testimony, rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and this court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, where the newly discovered evidence is largely impeaching and cumulative in character, and where it does not appear that such an extraordinary state of facts was shown by the affidavits submitted upon the hearing of the extraordinary motion as would probably produce a different result if a new trial should be granted. Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288); Thomas v. State, 19 Ga. App. 242 (91 S. E. 287).

2. It does not appear from the record that the trial judge, in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial, abused, or failéd to exercise, the discretion vested in him.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 656, 24 Ga. App. 269, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darby-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack