Mills v. State
This text of 57 Ga. 609 (Mills v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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 fact that the name of one of the grand jury who found the true bill' was not in the jury box from which jurors were drawn, is not good ground for arresting the judgment, or for a new trial, after verdict. The objection should be made before the case is submitted to the jury : 33 Georgia Re-forts, 432, 73, 602.
2. A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative, and tends, too, only to impeach the character of a witness sworn on the trial.
[610]*6103. If the evidence, though conflicting, be sufficient to authorize the verdict, this court will not control the discretion of the presiding judge in refusing to grant a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 Ga. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-ga-1876.