Minyard v. State

89 S.E. 379, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 324
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 27, 1916·No. 7466·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Wade, O. J.

Extraordinary motions for new trials are not favored, and should be denied where based upon alleged newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative and impeaching in character. Due diligence on the part of the movhnt must also appear. Under the facts disclosed by the record in this case, we can not say that the trial judge abused the broad discretion vested in him by law in refusing this motion. Judgment affirmed.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Americus— Judge Harper. April 8, 1916. W. W. Dykes, L. J. Blalock, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Williams, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Minyard v. State, 89 S.E. 379, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

89 S.E. 379 (Minyard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. State
77 Ga. App. 532 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)