Hargett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hargett v. State

100 S.E. 765, 24 Ga. App. 357, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 655

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 4, 1919

Docket10878

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 765 (Hargett 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

Hargett v. State, 100 S.E. 765, 24 Ga. App. 357, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The special ground of the motion for a new trial points out no error which would require the grant of a new trial.

2. This court is a court for the correction of errors of law alone. “It has no authority to entertain an assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict. This ground in the motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, upon whom is imposed the duty of being satisfied with a verdict before he approves it.” Bell v. Aiken, 1 Ga. App. 36 (57 S. E. 1001). On questions of fact the jury is the final arbiter. The trial judge by overruling the motion for a new trial expressed his satisfaction with the verdict, and this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The special ground of the motion for a new trial points out no error which would require the grant of a new trial.

2. This court is a court for the correction of errors of law alone. “It has no authority to entertain an assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict. This ground in the motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, upon whom is imposed the duty of being satisfied with a verdict before he approves it.” Bell v. Aiken, 1 Ga. App. 36 (57 S. E. 1001). On questions of fact the jury is the final arbiter. The trial judge by overruling the motion for a new trial expressed his satisfaction with the verdict, and this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 765, 24 Ga. App. 357, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargett-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack