Graham v. Owens

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Graham v. Owens

89 S.E. 304, 18 Ga. App. 284, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 294

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1916

Docket7098

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 304 (Graham v. Owens) 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

Graham v. Owens, 89 S.E. 304, 18 Ga. App. 284, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

1. The jury having resolved the issues of fact in favor of the defendant, no error of law being complained of, and the presiding judge having approved the verdict, this court is without jurisdiction to interfere with the verdict.

2. The so-called newly discovered evidence was impeaching in its nature and merely cumulative, and is insufficient to require this court to reverse the judgment refusing a new trial.

3. The alleged admission of the defendant in his testimony was as follows: “I reckon I did owe him [the plaintiff] for some of those melons, about 75 or 80.cents, I reckon.” He offered an explanation of this admission, which was evidently accepted by the jury, and this court will not grant a new trial on the ground that the defendant “admitted that he was indebted ”to the plaintiff.” Judgment affirmed.

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

Hodges, J.

1. The jury having resolved the issues of fact in favor of the defendant, no error of law being complained of, and the presiding judge having approved the verdict, this court is without jurisdiction to interfere with the verdict.

2. The so-called newly discovered evidence was impeaching in its nature and merely cumulative, and is insufficient to require this court to reverse the judgment refusing a new trial.

3. The alleged admission of the defendant in his testimony was as follows: “I reckon I did owe him [the plaintiff] for some of those melons, about 75 or 80.cents, I reckon.” He offered an explanation of this admission, which was evidently accepted by the jury, and this court will not grant a new trial on the ground that the defendant “admitted that he was indebted ”to the plaintiff.” Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 304, 18 Ga. App. 284, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-owens-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack