Littleton v. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Littleton v. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.

70 S.E. 192, 8 Ga. App. 786, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 147

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1911·No. 2611·Published

Opinion

Rowell, J.

The evidence preponderates in favor of the verdict. A reading of the charge as a whole shows that it very fairly presented to the jury every theory of facts relied on by the plaintiff, and the law in relation thereto, and that even though there were minor verbal inaccuracies, they were not such as to have prejudiced the plaintiff’s case. No error in the admission or rejection of testimony appears. The judgment refusing a new trial is, therefore, Affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge W. F.' Eve. March 18,1910.

Isaac S. Peebles Jr., T. F. Harrison, for plaintiff. William K. Miller, for defendant.

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

Rowell, J.

The evidence preponderates in favor of the verdict. A reading of the charge as a whole shows that it very fairly presented to the jury every theory of facts relied on by the plaintiff, and the law in relation thereto, and that even though there were minor verbal inaccuracies, they were not such as to have prejudiced the plaintiff’s case. No error in the admission or rejection of testimony appears. The judgment refusing a new trial is, therefore, Affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge W. F.' Eve. March 18,1910.

Isaac S. Peebles Jr., T. F. Harrison, for plaintiff. William K. Miller, for defendant.

Littleton v. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co., 70 S.E. 192, 8 Ga. App. 786, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 147 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

70 S.E. 192 (Littleton v. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.