Hulsey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hulsey v. State

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

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 11, 1932

DocketNo. 8860

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 257 (Hulsey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 257, 175 Ga. 360, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulsey-v-state-ga-1932.