Howard v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howard v. State

97 S.E. 83, 22 Ga. App. 627

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1918

Docket9881

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E. 83 (Howard 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

Howard v. State, 97 S.E. 83, 22 Ga. App. 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. In the excerpts from 'the charge of the court, complained of in the 1st, 2d and 3d grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, there is no error sufficient to warrant the granting of a neW trial. Grounds 4 and 5 are specifically abandoned in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error.

2. “There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and, the verdict having been approved by th'e trial judge, under the repeated and" uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732). See McCarty v. Keys, 19 Ga. App. 494 (91 S. E. 875); Phillips-Boyd Publishing Co. v. Bird, 19 Ga. App. 808 (92 S. E. 287). Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

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

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. In the excerpts from 'the charge of the court, complained of in the 1st, 2d and 3d grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, there is no error sufficient to warrant the granting of a neW trial. Grounds 4 and 5 are specifically abandoned in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error.

2. “There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and, the verdict having been approved by th'e trial judge, under the repeated and" uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732). See McCarty v. Keys, 19 Ga. App. 494 (91 S. E. 875); Phillips-Boyd Publishing Co. v. Bird, 19 Ga. App. 808 (92 S. E. 287). Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 83, 22 Ga. App. 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack