Myhand v. Harris

Supreme Court of Georgia

Myhand v. Harris

87 S.E.2d 376, 211 Ga. 567, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 390

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1955

Docket18925

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 87 S.E.2d 376 (Myhand v. Harris) 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.

Bluebook

Myhand v. Harris, 87 S.E.2d 376, 211 Ga. 567, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 390 (Ga. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

There has obviously been no attempt to make a brief of the material evidence in this ease. As illustrative of this, on page 79 of the alleged brief, there appears a statement of the judge, recessing court until morning and instructing the jury to allow no one to communicate with them. Then on page 100, and comprising practically all of that page, is a motion of defendant’s counsel for a directed verdict, the reply of counsel, and the overruling of the motion by the court. The object in changing the rule about briefs of evidence to allow questions and answers (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sess., pp. 440, 445) was not intended to relax the rule that there must be a brief of only the evidence.

The exception to a refusal to enter judgment despite the mistrial order is the question we are asked to review, and a consideration of the evidence is indispensable to such a ruling. Therefore, since there is no proper brief of evidence we have no choice but to affirm the judgment. Turner v. Turner, 205 Ga. 578 (54 S. E. 2d 410); Robinson v. State, 209 Ga. 650 (75 S. E. 2d 9); Heard v. Helms, 210 Ga. 669 (82 S. E. 2d 129); McDonald v. Fletcher, 211 Ga. 405 (86 S. E. 2d 215).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., who is disqualified.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

There has obviously been no attempt to make a brief of the material evidence in this ease. As illustrative of this, on page 79 of the alleged brief, there appears a statement of the judge, recessing court until morning and instructing the jury to allow no one to communicate with them. Then on page 100, and comprising practically all of that page, is a motion of defendant’s counsel for a directed verdict, the reply of counsel, and the overruling of the motion by the court. The object in changing the rule about briefs of evidence to allow questions and answers (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sess., pp. 440, 445) was not intended to relax the rule that there must be a brief of only the evidence.

The exception to a refusal to enter judgment despite the mistrial order is the question we are asked to review, and a consideration of the evidence is indispensable to such a ruling. Therefore, since there is no proper brief of evidence we have no choice but to affirm the judgment. Turner v. Turner, 205 Ga. 578 (54 S. E. 2d 410); Robinson v. State, 209 Ga. 650 (75 S. E. 2d 9); Heard v. Helms, 210 Ga. 669 (82 S. E. 2d 129); McDonald v. Fletcher, 211 Ga. 405 (86 S. E. 2d 215).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., who is disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E.2d 376, 211 Ga. 567, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myhand-v-harris-ga-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack