Durrence v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Durrence v. State

136 S.E. 329, 36 Ga. App. 278, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 13

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17719

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 329 (Durrence 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

Durrence v. State, 136 S.E. 329, 36 Ga. App. 278, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 13 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. As regards the alleged newly discovered evidence, the affidavits of both the defendant and his counsel fail to state that the evidence could not, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been discovered by them before the verdict. The court, therefore, had the discretion to overrule that ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

1. As regards the alleged newly discovered evidence, the affidavits of both the defendant and his counsel fail to state that the evidence could not, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been discovered by them before the verdict. The court, therefore, had the discretion to overrule that ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 329, 36 Ga. App. 278, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durrence-v-state-gactapp-1927.