Kiker v. Henning

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kiker v. Henning

102 S.E.2d 497, 97 Ga. App. 251, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 753

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 27, 1958

Docket37051

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E.2d 497 (Kiker v. Henning) 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

Kiker v. Henning, 102 S.E.2d 497, 97 Ga. App. 251, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 753 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Where a motion for a new trial is based on the grounds of newly discovered evidence which allegedly was not cumulative or impeaching and which was likely' to produce a different verdict at a new trial, and no brief of evidence accompanied the motion, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion. McCoy v. State, 193 Ga. 413 (18 S. E. 2d 684).

2. “The usual general certificate of the trial judge, approving as true all statements of fact contained in a special ground of a motion for a new trial, will be construed by this court as approving as true only such statements in the ground as are purely statements of fact, and not as so approving other allegations therein, which, although stated as facts, should properly be construed as mere conclusions of the movant, based upon facts set forth in the ground.” Humphrey v. State, 24 Ga. App. 22 (1) (99 S. E. 714); Rewis v. State, 27 Ga. App. 258 (2) (108 S. E. 62).

The court did not err in denying the amended motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Where a motion for a new trial is based on the grounds of newly discovered evidence which allegedly was not cumulative or impeaching and which was likely' to produce a different verdict at a new trial, and no brief of evidence accompanied the motion, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion. McCoy v. State, 193 Ga. 413 (18 S. E. 2d 684).

2. “The usual general certificate of the trial judge, approving as true all statements of fact contained in a special ground of a motion for a new trial, will be construed by this court as approving as true only such statements in the ground as are purely statements of fact, and not as so approving other allegations therein, which, although stated as facts, should properly be construed as mere conclusions of the movant, based upon facts set forth in the ground.” Humphrey v. State, 24 Ga. App. 22 (1) (99 S. E. 714); Rewis v. State, 27 Ga. App. 258 (2) (108 S. E. 62).

The court did not err in denying the amended motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E.2d 497, 97 Ga. App. 251, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiker-v-henning-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack