Hawkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hawkins v. State

92 S.E. 958, 20 Ga. App. 179, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 784

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1917

Docket8684

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 958 (Hawkins 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

Hawkins v. State, 92 S.E. 958, 20 Ga. App. 179, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury, who may believe them notwithstanding testimony offered for the purpose of impeachment.

2. Though the charge of the court, to the effect that if a witness has been successfully impeached the jury would not be authorized to believe his testimony, unless it appeared to their satisfaction “that the character of the witness had been restored by the witnesses testifying as to the good character, or other eireumstances vn the case,” did not expressly confine the consideration of the jury to such “other circumstances” as might corroborate the. testimony of the witness on some material point, yet when this excerpt is considered in connection with the entire charge and in the light of the evidence adduced at the.trial, the jury could not have been misled thereby; and there is [180]*180no such merit in the only special ground of the motion for a new trial as will require a reversal. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Decided June 13, 1917.

Accusation, of sale of liquor; from city court of Carrollton-— Judge Beall. March 5, 1917.

Smith & Spradlin, for plaintiff in error. Willis Smith, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury, who may believe them notwithstanding testimony offered for the purpose of impeachment.

2. Though the charge of the court, to the effect that if a witness has been successfully impeached the jury would not be authorized to believe his testimony, unless it appeared to their satisfaction “that the character of the witness had been restored by the witnesses testifying as to the good character, or other eireumstances vn the case,” did not expressly confine the consideration of the jury to such “other circumstances” as might corroborate the. testimony of the witness on some material point, yet when this excerpt is considered in connection with the entire charge and in the light of the evidence adduced at the.trial, the jury could not have been misled thereby; and there is [180]*180no such merit in the only special ground of the motion for a new trial as will require a reversal. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Decided June 13, 1917.

Accusation, of sale of liquor; from city court of Carrollton-— Judge Beall. March 5, 1917.

Smith & Spradlin, for plaintiff in error. Willis Smith, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 958, 20 Ga. App. 179, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack