Lee v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lee v. State

88 S.E. 206, 144 Ga. 831, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 133

DecidedMarch 14, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 206 (Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. State, 88 S.E. 206, 144 Ga. 831, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 133 (Ga. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

1. Under the conflicting evidence, there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial on account of the alleged bias of a juror. Humphrey v. State, 141 Ga. 671 (81 S. E. 1034).

2. The evidence warranted the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge; and no sufficient reason is made to appear for the grant of a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. ID. B. Nicholson and Max B. Land, for plaintiff in error. Clifford Wallcer, attorney-general, Joseph B. Wall, solicitor-general, and Mark Bolding, contra.

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

Evans, P. J.

1. Under the conflicting evidence, there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial on account of the alleged bias of a juror. Humphrey v. State, 141 Ga. 671 (81 S. E. 1034).

2. The evidence warranted the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge; and no sufficient reason is made to appear for the grant of a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. ID. B. Nicholson and Max B. Land, for plaintiff in error. Clifford Wallcer, attorney-general, Joseph B. Wall, solicitor-general, and Mark Bolding, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 206, 144 Ga. 831, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-ga-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack