Pollard v. State
54 S.E. 171, 125 Ga. 270, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 125
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
Pollard v. State, 54 S.E. 171, 125 Ga. 270, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 125 (Ga. 1906).
54 S.E. 171 (Pollard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Drake v. State
144 S.E.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Price v. State
152 S.E. 572 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Braddy v. State
148 S.E. 600 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Trammell v. Shirley
145 S.E. 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)