Hill v. State
37 S.E. 441, 112 Ga. 32, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 17
Opinion
1. A motion for a new trial in a criminal case, based on the general grounds that the verdict complained of was contrary to law and evidence, does not raise any question as to the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly. S., F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Hardin, 110 Ga. 433.
2. When a motion for a new trial fails to make special assignments of error, the same can not be supplied in a bill of exceptions alleging error in overruling such motion. Clay v. Smith, 108 Ga. 189; Newman v. Day, Id. 813.
3. The evidence not only warranted but demanded the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hill v. State, 37 S.E. 441, 112 Ga. 32, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 17 (Ga. 1900).
37 S.E. 441 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Packer Corporation
2 P.2d 114 (Utah Supreme Court, 1931)
Hubbard v. Bibb Brokerage Co.
160 S.E. 639 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
State v. Glass
151 N.W. 229 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Crawford v. Wilson
83 S.E. 667 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1914)
Kelly v. Strouse & Bros.
43 S.E. 280 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Phœnix Insurance v. Schwartz
57 L.R.A. 752 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
White v. Screven County
38 S.E. 89 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)