Parsons v. Georgia Power Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parsons v. Georgia Power Company

21 S.E.2d 257, 67 Ga. App. 517, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 460

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 6, 1942

Docket29505.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 S.E.2d 257 (Parsons v. Georgia Power Company) 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

Parsons v. Georgia Power Company, 21 S.E.2d 257, 67 Ga. App. 517, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Belton, J.

1. The judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling a motion for new trial one ground of which was based on newly discovered evidence where there was no affidavit of the movant and her counsel showing that they did not know of such evidence before the trial and that they could not have discovered it before the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Code, Ann. § 70-204, and citations under catchword “Diligence;” Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 (87 S. E. 668). Tho mere statement in the ground of the amended motion that movant did not know of the evidence before trial was insufficient.

2. A verdict will not be set aside because of the false testimony of a witness unless and until the witness has been convicted of perjury. Code, § 110-706.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment ajirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Belton, J.

1. The judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling a motion for new trial one ground of which was based on newly discovered evidence where there was no affidavit of the movant and her counsel showing that they did not know of such evidence before the trial and that they could not have discovered it before the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Code, Ann. § 70-204, and citations under catchword “Diligence;” Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 (87 S. E. 668). Tho mere statement in the ground of the amended motion that movant did not know of the evidence before trial was insufficient.

2. A verdict will not be set aside because of the false testimony of a witness unless and until the witness has been convicted of perjury. Code, § 110-706.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment ajirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.E.2d 257, 67 Ga. App. 517, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-georgia-power-company-gactapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack