Madison v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Madison v. State

60 S.E. 1068, 4 Ga. App. 218, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 246

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1908

Docket1063

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 S.E. 1068 (Madison 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.

Bluebook

Madison v. State, 60 S.E. 1068, 4 Ga. App. 218, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

' The attention of the court is formally called to the fact that the brief of the evidence does not bear the approval of the trial judge. This, of necessity, prevents our consideration of the assignments of error, all of which depend on the evidence. By a certificate made subsequently to the transmission of the record, the trial judge states that the brief is in fact correct, and was left unapproved by inadvertence. However, this act of fairness on the part of the trial judge can not help the matter; we have no jurisdiction to consider facts of a case not presented to us in the manner prescribed by statute; and this is not the manner prescribed. We have not created these technicalities; the law itself has established them, and we have no power to destroy them. Therefore, any opinion we may express on the evidence is purely personal; but since both sides of the case seem to wish our views, we may say that we personally thin’k that, while the evidence does not make a strong case, it is probably legally sufficient to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

' The attention of the court is formally called to the fact that the brief of the evidence does not bear the approval of the trial judge. This, of necessity, prevents our consideration of the assignments of error, all of which depend on the evidence. By a certificate made subsequently to the transmission of the record, the trial judge states that the brief is in fact correct, and was left unapproved by inadvertence. However, this act of fairness on the part of the trial judge can not help the matter; we have no jurisdiction to consider facts of a case not presented to us in the manner prescribed by statute; and this is not the manner prescribed. We have not created these technicalities; the law itself has established them, and we have no power to destroy them. Therefore, any opinion we may express on the evidence is purely personal; but since both sides of the case seem to wish our views, we may say that we personally thin’k that, while the evidence does not make a strong case, it is probably legally sufficient to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 1068, 4 Ga. App. 218, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-v-state-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack