Ponder v. State
Opinions
1. Before exceptions pendente lite can be considered by this court, error must have been originally assigned in the main bill of exceptions upon the exceptions pendente lite, and not merely upon the judgment complained of in the exceptions pendente lite, or such an assignment must be made, by the permission of this court, before the argument of the case here. Jones v. Ragan, 136 Ga. 653 (71 S. E. 1098) ; Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World v. Warner, 25 Ga. App. 449 (103 S. E. 861); Carhart v. Mackle, 25 Ga. App. 499 (103 S. E. 855). An inspection of the original records of those cases (of file in the office of the clerk of the reviewing court) discloses that in the main bill of exceptions in each case error was assigned upon the judgment complained of in the exceptions pendente lite and not upon the exceptions pendente lite themselves. Under this ruling, the exceptions pendente lite cannot be considered.
2. The motion for a new trial is based upon the general grounds only, and the verdict was amply authorized by the evidence: It follows that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
105 S.E. 318 (Ponder v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.