Kimbrel v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kimbrel v. State

101 S.E. 920, 24 Ga. App. 696, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 464

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1920

Docket10996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 101 S.E. 920 (Kimbrel 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

Kimbrel v. State, 101 S.E. 920, 24 Ga. App. 696, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 464 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “In order for the exclusion of oral testimony to be considered as a ground for a new trial, it must appear that a pertinent question was asked, and that the court ruled out the answer; and that a statement was made to the court at the time, showing what the answer would be; and that such testimony was material, and would have benefited the complaining party.” Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (2) (43 S. E. 712). “The amendment to the motion for a new trial complains solely of 'the exclusion of certain evidence, but it is not shown therein that this evidence was offered by the plaintiff in error.” Lowe v. Burden, 22 Ga. App. 679 (1) (97 S. E. 106). Under the above rulings the amendment to the motion for a new trial raises no question for adjudication by this court.

2. The evidence amply supports the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge; no error of law appears; and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “In order for the exclusion of oral testimony to be considered as a ground for a new trial, it must appear that a pertinent question was asked, and that the court ruled out the answer; and that a statement was made to the court at the time, showing what the answer would be; and that such testimony was material, and would have benefited the complaining party.” Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (2) (43 S. E. 712). “The amendment to the motion for a new trial complains solely of 'the exclusion of certain evidence, but it is not shown therein that this evidence was offered by the plaintiff in error.” Lowe v. Burden, 22 Ga. App. 679 (1) (97 S. E. 106). Under the above rulings the amendment to the motion for a new trial raises no question for adjudication by this court.

2. The evidence amply supports the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge; no error of law appears; and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 920, 24 Ga. App. 696, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimbrel-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack