Lee v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lee v. State

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

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 14, 1916·Published

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.

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

Pincite

88 S.E. 206 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related