Hulsey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hulsey v. State

165 S.E. 257, 175 Ga. 360, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 250

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hulsey v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 172 Ga. 797 →

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 11, 1932·No. No. 8860·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

The newly discovered evidence, including the counter-showing made by the State, is very voluminous, and has been carefully read and considered. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, after hearing this conflicting evidence, in refusing the extraordinary motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., and Athvnson, J., who dissent. William G. McRae, for plaintiffs in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, S. W. Ragsdale, solicitor-general, and T. R. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

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

Hill, J.

The newly discovered evidence, including the counter-showing made by the State, is very voluminous, and has been carefully read and considered. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, after hearing this conflicting evidence, in refusing the extraordinary motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., and Athvnson, J., who dissent. William G. McRae, for plaintiffs in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, S. W. Ragsdale, solicitor-general, and T. R. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

Hulsey v. State, 165 S.E. 257, 175 Ga. 360, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 250 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

165 S.E. 257 (Hulsey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.