Morrow v. State

95 S.E. 934, 22 Ga. App. 253, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 280
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 1, 1918·No. 9563·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Bloodwokth, J.

1. Under the oft-repeated rulings of. this court and of the Supreme Court that each ground of a motion for a new trial must he complete and understandable without resorting to an examination of the brief of the evidence or of any other part of the record, the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial in this case will not be considered. Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams, 19 Ga. App. 544 (4) (91 S. E. 1001); Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 (87 S. E. 668).

2. No error warranting the grant of a new trial appears in the excerpts from the charge of the court complained of in grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial; and there is no merit in grounds 6 and 7.

3. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are expressly abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

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

Morrow v. State, 95 S.E. 934, 22 Ga. App. 253, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

95 S.E. 934 (Morrow v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheppard v. State
113 S.E. 54 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Hudson v. State
107 S.E. 94 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Perdue & Pace v. Hurst
100 S.E. 647 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)