Durham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Durham v. State

111 S.E. 701, 28 Ga. App. 464, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 604

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 11, 1922·No. 13271·Published

Opinion

Bloodwobth, J.

1. “ Prejudicial remarks of the court 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 has been made and refused.” Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 157 (6), 160 (6) (92 S. E. 970, 971), and cases cited. This ruling disposes of the special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The evidence amply authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. J. C. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Bloodwobth, J.

1. “ Prejudicial remarks of the court 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 has been made and refused.” Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 157 (6), 160 (6) (92 S. E. 970, 971), and cases cited. This ruling disposes of the special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The evidence amply authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. J. C. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

Durham v. State, 111 S.E. 701, 28 Ga. App. 464, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 604 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

111 S.E. 701 (Durham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

2. The evidence amply authorized the verdict.

Related