Mills v. State

57 Ga. 609
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

Mills v. State, 57 Ga. 609 (Ga. 1876).

57 Ga. 609 (Mills v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. State
33 S.E.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Mitchell v. State
26 S.E.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Lindsey v. State
194 S.E. 833 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)