Kleckley v. Bank of Oglethorpe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kleckley v. Bank of Oglethorpe

91 S.E. 287, 19 Ga. App. 251, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 82

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1917

Docket7412

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 287 (Kleckley v. Bank of Oglethorpe) 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

Kleckley v. Bank of Oglethorpe, 91 S.E. 287, 19 Ga. App. 251, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 82 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. There is ample evidence to support the verdict. 2. When considered in connection with the entire charge of the court, there is not sufficient error in the excerpts therefrom complained of in the motion for new trial to authorize a reversal. Mere inaccuracies of expression, or slight errors, which are not likely to obscure the meaning of the court or mislead the jury, will not authorize this court to set aside a verdict, where the charge is otherwise comprehensive and correct.

3. “The showing as to diligence in reference to the alleged newly discovered evidence not being at all satisfactory, and there being no affidavit as to the character and credibility of the alleged new witness, the dis-cretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant a new trial will not be controlled.” Atwater v. Hannah, 116 Ga. 745 (42 S. E. 1007).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Oglethorpe—Judge Greer. March 10, 1916.

W. W. Dykes, for plaintiffs in error. Jule Felton, contra.

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