Morgan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morgan v. State

82 S.E. 156, 14 Ga. App. 667, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1914

Docket5447

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 156 (Morgan v. State) 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

Morgan v. State, 82 S.E. 156, 14 Ga. App. 667, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Where a motion for a new trial is based on newly discovered evidence, and there is conflict in the testimony, and the comparative credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial judge is the trior of all facts in controversy, and a reviewing court will not control his decision as to any point at issue which is dependent upon the credibility of the witnesses. Especially will the refusal of a trial judge to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence not be reversed where the showing as to a portion of the alleged newly discovered evidence is not accompanied by proper affidavits attesting the good character of the affiants, aid when it further appears that the evidence alleged to be newly discovered might, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been ascertained before the trial.

[668]*668Decided June 22, 1914.

Indictment for assault and battery; from Pike superior court-judge Eobert F. Daniel. December 19, 1913.

T. E. Patterson, for plaintiff in error. E. M. Owen, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict; there was no error on the trial, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Where a motion for a new trial is based on newly discovered evidence, and there is conflict in the testimony, and the comparative credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial judge is the trior of all facts in controversy, and a reviewing court will not control his decision as to any point at issue which is dependent upon the credibility of the witnesses. Especially will the refusal of a trial judge to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence not be reversed where the showing as to a portion of the alleged newly discovered evidence is not accompanied by proper affidavits attesting the good character of the affiants, aid when it further appears that the evidence alleged to be newly discovered might, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been ascertained before the trial.

[668]*668Decided June 22, 1914.

Indictment for assault and battery; from Pike superior court-judge Eobert F. Daniel. December 19, 1913.

T. E. Patterson, for plaintiff in error. E. M. Owen, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict; there was no error on the trial, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 156, 14 Ga. App. 667, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-state-gactapp-1914.