Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. State

121 S.E. 244, 31 Ga. App. 557, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 51

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1924

Docket15140

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 244 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 121 S.E. 244, 31 Ga. App. 557, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains no special grounds. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it. Applications for new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will [558]*558not interfere, if there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion set forth in the verdict. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory, and doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for this court to endorse his judgment in cases of this character. Terrell v. State, 29 Ga. App. 285 (114 S. E. 909).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains no special grounds. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it. Applications for new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will [558]*558not interfere, if there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion set forth in the verdict. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory, and doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for this court to endorse his judgment in cases of this character. Terrell v. State, 29 Ga. App. 285 (114 S. E. 909).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 244, 31 Ga. App. 557, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack