Nash v. State
94 S.E. 60, 21 Ga. App. 76, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 428
Opinion
1. The motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the court, exercising by consent the functions of both judge and jury, to adjudge the defendant guilty. Miller v. State, 9 Ga. App. 827 (72 S. E. 279).
2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, notwithstanding the judgment overruling the motion was rendered, as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, “on Friday the thirteenth.”
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nash v. State, 94 S.E. 60, 21 Ga. App. 76, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).
94 S.E. 60 (Nash v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miller v. State
72 S.E. 279 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)