Patrick v. State

156 S.E. 274, 42 Ga. App. 414, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 431
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 19, 1930·No. 20943·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. In this case a ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, and affidavits were introduced sustaining and disputing this ground of the motion. The trial judge is the trior of the facts, and his discretion in refusing a new trial on this ground will not be controlled unless manifestly abused. His discretion was not abused in this case. Salter v. State, 39 Ga. App. 13 (2) (145 S. E. 918) ; Hayes v. State, 16 Ga. App. 334 (85 S. E. 253).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the motion for a new trial shows no cause for a reversal. Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Ltíhe, J., eoneur.

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

Patrick v. State, 156 S.E. 274, 42 Ga. App. 414, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 431 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

156 S.E. 274 (Patrick v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hayes v. State
85 S.E. 253 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Bradham v. State
94 S.E. 618 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Salter v. State
145 S.E. 918 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)