Powell v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Powell v. State

119 S.E. 693, 156 Ga. 636, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 291

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 12, 1923

DocketNo. 3678

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.E. 693 (Powell 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.

Bluebook

Powell v. State, 119 S.E. 693, 156 Ga. 636, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 291 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. , “ It is very possible that the truth of this ease does not appear in the record, and that it was not brought out on the trial” (Holsenbake v. State, 45 Ga. 43); but the evidence adduced was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and this court has no power to invade the ' province of the jury in passing upon the credibility of testimony.

2. There was no error, for any of the reasons assigned, in any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial which required the grant of a new trial; and the verdict being approved by the trial judge, his discretion in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. G. Parle and Lowrey Stone, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, B. T. Gasiellow, solicitor-general, Seward M. Smith, assistant attorney-general, and Reuben R. Arnold, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. , “ It is very possible that the truth of this ease does not appear in the record, and that it was not brought out on the trial” (Holsenbake v. State, 45 Ga. 43); but the evidence adduced was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and this court has no power to invade the ' province of the jury in passing upon the credibility of testimony.

2. There was no error, for any of the reasons assigned, in any of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial which required the grant of a new trial; and the verdict being approved by the trial judge, his discretion in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. G. Parle and Lowrey Stone, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, B. T. Gasiellow, solicitor-general, Seward M. Smith, assistant attorney-general, and Reuben R. Arnold, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 693, 156 Ga. 636, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-state-ga-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack