Lothridge v. Varnadore

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lothridge v. Varnadore

78 S.E. 721, 140 Ga. 131, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 52

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 13, 1913·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. The charge in this case was not well arranged, and was in some respects subject to criticism; but when considered as a whole, in the light of the evidence, it does not furnish ground for a new trial.

2. Although at one time in delivering his charge the presiding judge used the word “plaintiff” instead of the word “defendant,” yet this will not necessitate a new trial where the context plainly shows that it was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as was not calculated to mislead the jury. Southern Railway Co. v. Merritt, 120 Ga. 409 (47 S. E. 908).

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. The charge in this case was not well arranged, and was in some respects subject to criticism; but when considered as a whole, in the light of the evidence, it does not furnish ground for a new trial.

2. Although at one time in delivering his charge the presiding judge used the word “plaintiff” instead of the word “defendant,” yet this will not necessitate a new trial where the context plainly shows that it was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as was not calculated to mislead the jury. Southern Railway Co. v. Merritt, 120 Ga. 409 (47 S. E. 908).

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Lothridge v. Varnadore, 78 S.E. 721, 140 Ga. 131, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 52 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

78 S.E. 721 (Lothridge v. Varnadore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related