Forth v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Forth v. State

129 S.E. 21, 34 Ga. App. 188, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 137

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1925

Docket16457

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.E. 21 (Forth 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

Forth v. State, 129 S.E. 21, 34 Ga. App. 188, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 137 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. A ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged irregularities in the drawing of the jury for the term at which the accused was tried, of which neither the defendant nor his counsel knew until after conviction. The record shows that thirty-six jurors were drawn from the box, that, after twenty-eight had been regularly and legally drawn, the judge, in [189]*189order that jurors might be obtained who were qualified to try certain cases of long standing on the docket, drew the remaining eight jurors with reference to these cases, and when a juror’s name was taken from the box, if it was the same name as that of either party in any of these old cases, the judge would drop it back in the box. This was irregular, and in that practice the judges should not indulge. The record further shows that on the list of twenty-four from which the jury in this case was stricken, there was not on the list a single name of the eight drawn from the box by the judge, but the list was made from the twenty-eight names first drawn and one talesman summoned to take the place of a juror excused for cause, who was one of the twenty-four first drawn. It thus appears that there was no irregularity as to the first twenty-four jurors on the list from which the twelve who tried the case were selected. There is no claim that a single person who served on the jury was not a qualified juror. “There is no intimation in any part of this record that the jury in this case was not as fair and-impartial as any jury that could have been obtained by the most exact and literal compliance with the statute.” Governor v. State, 5 Ga. App. 363 (63 S. E. 241). See Worley V. State, 21 Ga. App. 787 (95 S. E. 364). This ground of the motion for a new trial shows no reason why the judgment should be reversed.

2. It is not part of the duty of this court to settle disputed questions of fact. Where there is conflict in the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing new trials, but where the jury has passed upon the facts, and their verdict is approved by the judge who tried the case, and no error of law has been committed, this court is powerless to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. A ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged irregularities in the drawing of the jury for the term at which the accused was tried, of which neither the defendant nor his counsel knew until after conviction. The record shows that thirty-six jurors were drawn from the box, that, after twenty-eight had been regularly and legally drawn, the judge, in [189]*189order that jurors might be obtained who were qualified to try certain cases of long standing on the docket, drew the remaining eight jurors with reference to these cases, and when a juror’s name was taken from the box, if it was the same name as that of either party in any of these old cases, the judge would drop it back in the box. This was irregular, and in that practice the judges should not indulge. The record further shows that on the list of twenty-four from which the jury in this case was stricken, there was not on the list a single name of the eight drawn from the box by the judge, but the list was made from the twenty-eight names first drawn and one talesman summoned to take the place of a juror excused for cause, who was one of the twenty-four first drawn. It thus appears that there was no irregularity as to the first twenty-four jurors on the list from which the twelve who tried the case were selected. There is no claim that a single person who served on the jury was not a qualified juror. “There is no intimation in any part of this record that the jury in this case was not as fair and-impartial as any jury that could have been obtained by the most exact and literal compliance with the statute.” Governor v. State, 5 Ga. App. 363 (63 S. E. 241). See Worley V. State, 21 Ga. App. 787 (95 S. E. 364). This ground of the motion for a new trial shows no reason why the judgment should be reversed.

2. It is not part of the duty of this court to settle disputed questions of fact. Where there is conflict in the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing new trials, but where the jury has passed upon the facts, and their verdict is approved by the judge who tried the case, and no error of law has been committed, this court is powerless to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 21, 34 Ga. App. 188, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forth-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack