Lemming v. State

7 S.E.2d 42, 61 Ga. App. 605, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 183
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 31, 1940·No. 27982.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence tended only to impeach the State’s witness. There are literally hundreds of decisions which hold that newly discovered evidence which is merely impeaching in its character is not a good ground for a new trial.

•2. A'juror whose brother married the sister of the prosecutor’s wife did not thereby become related to the prosecutor so as to be disqualified. The brother became related to his wife’s relatives. The juror did not become so related. As was s'aid by Judge Bleckley in Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 517 (18 S. E. 315):

“The groom and bride each comes within The circle of the other’s kin; But kin and kin are still no more Related than they were before.”

See also Wilburn v. State, 141 Ga. 510 (2) (81 S. E. 444).

3. The evidence supported the verdict. The remaining grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Lemming v. State, 7 S.E.2d 42, 61 Ga. App. 605, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 183 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

7 S.E.2d 42 (Lemming v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drury v. State
87 S.E.2d 668 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Adams v. Worley
75 S.E.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Landers v. State
24 S.E.2d 139 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)