Hodges v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hodges v. Thompson

102 S.E. 379, 24 Ga. App. 799, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 527

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1920

Docket10947

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E. 379 (Hodges v. Thompson) 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

Hodges v. Thompson, 102 S.E. 379, 24 Ga. App. 799, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the refusal of the court to give to the jury a certain requested charge. “In order that this court may consider an exception to the judge’s refusal to give a request to charge, it must appear not only that it was in writing, but also that it was tendered to the court before the jury retired ‘to consider their verdict.’ ” Shirley v. State, 5 Ga. App. 611 (2) (63 S. E. 583); Penal Code (1910), § 1087. It does not so appear in this ground.

2. No error of law appearing, this court will not disturb a verdict where there is evidence to support it, as there is in this case, and where it is approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the refusal of the court to give to the jury a certain requested charge. “In order that this court may consider an exception to the judge’s refusal to give a request to charge, it must appear not only that it was in writing, but also that it was tendered to the court before the jury retired ‘to consider their verdict.’ ” Shirley v. State, 5 Ga. App. 611 (2) (63 S. E. 583); Penal Code (1910), § 1087. It does not so appear in this ground.

2. No error of law appearing, this court will not disturb a verdict where there is evidence to support it, as there is in this case, and where it is approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 379, 24 Ga. App. 799, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-thompson-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack