Pollard v. State
This text of 54 S.E. 171 (Pollard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. “An amendment to a motion for a new trial, which has upon it an entry to the effect that it was ‘allowed’ by the judge, with nothing else to indicate an approval of its grounds, is not sufficiently verified to authorize this court to deal with the assignments of error therein.” Sterling v. Unity Cotton Mills, 119 Ga. 173, and cit.; Williams v. State, 120 Ga. 488, and cit.; Bradley v. State, 121 Ga. 162.
2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and no sufficient reason appears for reversing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
54 S.E. 171, 125 Ga. 270, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollard-v-state-ga-1906.