Journigan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Journigan v. State

145 S.E. 503, 38 Ga. App. 740, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 425

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1928

Docket19155

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E. 503 (Journigan 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

Journigan v. State, 145 S.E. 503, 38 Ga. App. 740, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. When the entire charge given to the jury and all the facts and circumstances of the case are considered, there is no merit in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. “There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and, the verdict having been approved by the 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 Smith v. Barr, 32 Ga. App. 53 (8) (122 S. E. 626); Johnson v. State, 33 Ga. App. 148 (125 S. E. 734).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. When the entire charge given to the jury and all the facts and circumstances of the case are considered, there is no merit in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. “There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and, the verdict having been approved by the 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 Smith v. Barr, 32 Ga. App. 53 (8) (122 S. E. 626); Johnson v. State, 33 Ga. App. 148 (125 S. E. 734).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 503, 38 Ga. App. 740, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/journigan-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack