McNair v. Newsome

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McNair v. Newsome

85 S.E. 616, 16 Ga. App. 392, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 644

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 3, 1915

Docket5945

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 616 (McNair v. Newsome) 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

McNair v. Newsome, 85 S.E. 616, 16 Ga. App. 392, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 644 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. The only assignment of error, in addition to the usual grounds, being the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on account of alleged newly discovered evidence, and that evidence .being impeaching in its character, and the alleged newly discovered witness, as shown in the counter-showing, being in the employ of the plaintiffs in error at the time of the trial, and being in actual attendance upon the trial, on subpcena as a witness for the plaintiffs in error, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Louisville — Judge Strange presiding. June 30, 1914.

B. N. Hardeman, for plaintiffs in error. M. G. Barwich, contra.

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

Broyles, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. The only assignment of error, in addition to the usual grounds, being the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on account of alleged newly discovered evidence, and that evidence .being impeaching in its character, and the alleged newly discovered witness, as shown in the counter-showing, being in the employ of the plaintiffs in error at the time of the trial, and being in actual attendance upon the trial, on subpcena as a witness for the plaintiffs in error, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Louisville — Judge Strange presiding. June 30, 1914.

B. N. Hardeman, for plaintiffs in error. M. G. Barwich, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 616, 16 Ga. App. 392, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-newsome-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack