Loudermilk v. State
This text of 152 S.E. 593 (Loudermilk v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. The court did not err in instructing the jury that it was unlawful “to drive an automobile on a public highway at night with but one headlight burning.” See Ga. L. 1927, p. 226, sec. 9.
2. Special ground 4 of the motion for a new trial excepts to a mere fragment of the charge, an uncompleted sentence. The ground, therefore, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, is too incomplete to raise any question for consideration.
3. In the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, no one of the excerpts from the charge, as set forth in the motion for a new trial, is erroneous for any reason assigned.
4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
152 S.E. 593, 41 Ga. App. 286, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loudermilk-v-state-gactapp-1930.