Paceley v. State

100 S.E. 773, 24 Ga. App. 351, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 645
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 4, 1919·No. 10825·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete in itself. When it is so incomplete as to require this court to refer to the pleadings or to the brief of evidence, it will not be considered. Bridges v. Griffin, 20 Ga. App. 598 (2), 599 (93 S. E. 170). See also Copeland v. Ruff, 20 Ga. App. 217 (2) (92 S. E. 955); Head v. State, 144 Ga. 383 (87 S. E. 273); Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 (2) (87 S. E. 668).” Cæsar v. State, 22 Ga. App. 796 (97 S. E. 255). Under the rulings in the cases cited, neither of the two special grounds of the motion for new trial in this case can be considered by this court.

2. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Paceley v. State, 100 S.E. 773, 24 Ga. App. 351, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

100 S.E. 773 (Paceley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Head v. State
87 S.E. 273 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Smiley v. Smiley
87 S.E. 668 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Copeland v. Ruff
92 S.E. 955 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Bridges v. Griffin
93 S.E. 170 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Cæsar v. State
97 S.E. 255 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)