Harden v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Harden v. State

192 S.E. 829, 184 Ga. 698, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 620

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 15, 1937·No. No. 11903·Published

Opinion

I-Iutcheson, Justice.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence set out in the only special ground of the motion for new trial is not such as would probably produce a different result on another trial of the case.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not-err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J., and Bell, J., absent because of illness.

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

I-Iutcheson, Justice.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence set out in the only special ground of the motion for new trial is not such as would probably produce a different result on another trial of the case.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not-err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J., and Bell, J., absent because of illness.

Harden v. State, 192 S.E. 829, 184 Ga. 698, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 620 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

192 S.E. 829 (Harden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.