Oliver v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Oliver v. State

139 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 162, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 550

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1927

Docket18279

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E. 90 (Oliver 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

Oliver v. State, 139 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 162, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence is cumulative and impeaching and is not of such a character as would probably cause a different verdict upon another trial. Eurthermore, the affidavits in support of the witness upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought are defective in that they fail to give tlie names of 'his associates. Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175).

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. J. W. Bloodworth, M. Kunz, for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.

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