Heaton v. Puckett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Heaton v. Puckett

121 S.E. 131, 31 Ga. App. 526, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 22

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1924

Docket14769

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 131 (Heaton v. Puckett) 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

Heaton v. Puckett, 121 S.E. 131, 31 Ga. App. 526, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 22 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

There is no merit in the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

The verdict is approved by the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it. In Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 562, 563 (28 S. E. 978), Justice Cobb said: “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judges. When this discretion has been exercised and tffe motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere where there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which it set forth in the verdict. While in many cases we would probably not have rendered the verdict returned, and, if we were authorized to pass upon the case as on appeal, would render here a different judgment, still under the established practice of this court as required by the law of this State, we cannot overrule a trial judge, who, fresh from the atmosphere of the trial, sends to us a record in which he endorses the finding of the jury which tried the case in his presence. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory, and [527]*527doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for us to endorse his judgment in cases of this character.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

There is no merit in the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

The verdict is approved by the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it. In Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 562, 563 (28 S. E. 978), Justice Cobb said: “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judges. When this discretion has been exercised and tffe motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere where there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which it set forth in the verdict. While in many cases we would probably not have rendered the verdict returned, and, if we were authorized to pass upon the case as on appeal, would render here a different judgment, still under the established practice of this court as required by the law of this State, we cannot overrule a trial judge, who, fresh from the atmosphere of the trial, sends to us a record in which he endorses the finding of the jury which tried the case in his presence. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory, and [527]*527doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for us to endorse his judgment in cases of this character.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 131, 31 Ga. App. 526, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heaton-v-puckett-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack