Jackson v. State
Opinion
1. Where a motion for new trial contains only the general grounds, and the record discloses that the evidence for the State, if credible, was sufficient to support the verdict, the jury being the judges of the weight of the evidence, this court can not disturb the judgment of the trial court. Puckett v. State, 159 Ga. 230 (125 S. E. 208); Hudgins v. State, 2 Ga. 173 (5). “The law allows [the trial judge] to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but [393]*393it does not give this court ally discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials where errors of law have been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a now trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).
2. The judge having approved the verdict, we can not say that he abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
192 S.E. 630 (Jackson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.