Hanye v. Candler

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hanye v. Candler

25 S.E. 606, 99 Ga. 214

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 2, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 606 (Hanye v. Candler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanye v. Candler, 25 S.E. 606, 99 Ga. 214 (Ga. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where a motion, for a new trial is based exclusively on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and it appears that the 'evidence relied on is cumulative only and would not probably produce a different result, the motion should be denied.

2. In the present case the vital and controlling issue contested at the trial was whether .or not the accused struck the deceased with a knife while both were in a standing position. The accused introduced evidence tending to show he did not so strike, and which, if the same had been believed by the jury, would have established the truth of the accused’s contention upon this point. The newly discovered evidence on which the extraordinary motion for a new trial is based is on the same line, and though more direct, is nevertheless only cumulative of the evidence introduced 'by the accused upon the issue above mentioned; and, in the face of the established and undisputed physical facts of the case, it is not probable that this evidence, had it been introduced at the trial, would have led to a different verdict, or would do so upon another hearing.

3. The motion above referred to being without legal merit, the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a rule nisi thereon; and this being so, the Supreme Court will not grant a mandamus nisi to the end that he may be compelled to certify a bill of exceptions in which the only error assigned is the refusal to grant such rule nisi. Mandamus nisi denied.

Austin & Pwlc and W. B. Hmmnond, for movant.

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where a motion, for a new trial is based exclusively on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and it appears that the 'evidence relied on is cumulative only and would not probably produce a different result, the motion should be denied.

2. In the present case the vital and controlling issue contested at the trial was whether .or not the accused struck the deceased with a knife while both were in a standing position. The accused introduced evidence tending to show he did not so strike, and which, if the same had been believed by the jury, would have established the truth of the accused’s contention upon this point. The newly discovered evidence on which the extraordinary motion for a new trial is based is on the same line, and though more direct, is nevertheless only cumulative of the evidence introduced 'by the accused upon the issue above mentioned; and, in the face of the established and undisputed physical facts of the case, it is not probable that this evidence, had it been introduced at the trial, would have led to a different verdict, or would do so upon another hearing.

3. The motion above referred to being without legal merit, the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a rule nisi thereon; and this being so, the Supreme Court will not grant a mandamus nisi to the end that he may be compelled to certify a bill of exceptions in which the only error assigned is the refusal to grant such rule nisi. Mandamus nisi denied.

Austin & Pwlc and W. B. Hmmnond, for movant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E. 606, 99 Ga. 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanye-v-candler-ga-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack