McLeay v. Crane
This text of 76 S.E. 391 (McLeay v. Crane) 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. There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion fcr continuance.
2. While the fact that the names of some of the jurors in a justice’s court did not appear on the jury lis»- may have been good ground for challenge before the jury had been impaneled, yet where nc objection was made before the trial and no ruling made thereon, it can not be taken ad[816]*816vantage of-by certiorari after verdict. Mitchell v. Bradberry, 76 Ga. 15. This objection is propter defectum, and comes too late after verdict. Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443 (43 S. E. 679).
3. If a party desires that a verdict rendered at a former trial of the case be concealed from inspection by the jury, he should present a request to the trial judge to this effect. It is too late to make this objection on certiorari and after a second verdict has been rendered. Smalls v. State, 105 Ga. 669 (6), (31 S. E. 571),. and citations.
4. The allegations of the petition for certiorari,- in so far as they are verified by the answer, are wholly without merit; and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
76 S.E. 391, 11 Ga. App. 815, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcleay-v-crane-gactapp-1912.