Earwood v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Earwood v. State

90 S.E. 354, 18 Ga. App. 700, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1205

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 18, 1916

Docket7700

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 354 (Earwood 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

Earwood v. State, 90 S.E. 354, 18 Ga. App. 700, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1205 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted for trespass. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty. He moved for a new trial, upon the usual grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, etc.,' and upon the further ground that he ha.d newly discovered evidence of certain neighbors of his.

1. It appears, from an inspection of the record in this case, that the alleged newly discovered evidence was obtained from neighbors of the accused who had lived close to him for years and who say that they knew the land lines. If this newly discovered evidence is true, the plaintiff in error exercised no diligence to produce it before the jury. Presented as newly discovered evidence, it is merely cumulative and impeaching in character, and "can not be considered by this court.

2. The verdict is authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hodges, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted for trespass. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty. He moved for a new trial, upon the usual grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, etc.,' and upon the further ground that he ha.d newly discovered evidence of certain neighbors of his.

1. It appears, from an inspection of the record in this case, that the alleged newly discovered evidence was obtained from neighbors of the accused who had lived close to him for years and who say that they knew the land lines. If this newly discovered evidence is true, the plaintiff in error exercised no diligence to produce it before the jury. Presented as newly discovered evidence, it is merely cumulative and impeaching in character, and "can not be considered by this court.

2. The verdict is authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 354, 18 Ga. App. 700, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earwood-v-state-gactapp-1916.