Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. State

148 S.E. 282, 39 Ga. App. 699, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 525

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1929

Docket19666

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 282 (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, 148 S.E. 282, 39 Ga. App. 699, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial, complaining that the charge of the court was argumentative, or misleading and confusing to the jury, is too general to be considered, where it fails to allege wherein it was misleading, confusing, or argumentative. Wade v. Eason, 31 Ga. App. 256 (120 S. E. 440); Trammell v. Shirley, 38 Ga. App. 710, 714 (145 S. E. 486).

2. In none of the excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, did the court express an opinion upon the facts of the case.

3. Under the above-stated rulings the special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

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