Duffey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Duffey v. State

91 S.E. 908, 19 Ga. App. 606, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 251

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 23, 1917

Docket8320

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 908 (Duffey 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

Duffey v. State, 91 S.E. 908, 19 Ga. App. 606, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

,Wade, C. J.

1. The bill of exceptions was not sued out in time to preserve the exception therein based upon the overruling of a demurrer to the accusation, and. there was no exception pendente lite. The assignment of error upon the same ground, which appears in the motion for a new trial, can not be considered. Redwine v. Street, 18 Ga. App. 77 (89 S. E. 163) ; Kent v. State, 15 Ga. App. 210 (82 S. E. 762) ; Wills v. Young, 15 Ga. App. 352 (83 S. E. 275); Coulson v. State, 13 Ga. App. 148 (2), 150 (78 S. E. 1108), and cases there cited; Mayor &c. of Dublin v. Dudley, 2 Ga. App. 762 (59 S. E. 84).

2. There is no substantial merit in either of the two remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence supported the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

■George and Luke, J.J., eoneur.

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

,Wade, C. J.

1. The bill of exceptions was not sued out in time to preserve the exception therein based upon the overruling of a demurrer to the accusation, and. there was no exception pendente lite. The assignment of error upon the same ground, which appears in the motion for a new trial, can not be considered. Redwine v. Street, 18 Ga. App. 77 (89 S. E. 163) ; Kent v. State, 15 Ga. App. 210 (82 S. E. 762) ; Wills v. Young, 15 Ga. App. 352 (83 S. E. 275); Coulson v. State, 13 Ga. App. 148 (2), 150 (78 S. E. 1108), and cases there cited; Mayor &c. of Dublin v. Dudley, 2 Ga. App. 762 (59 S. E. 84).

2. There is no substantial merit in either of the two remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence supported the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

■George and Luke, J.J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 908, 19 Ga. App. 606, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffey-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack