Proctor v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Proctor v. State

70 S.E. 1126, 9 Ga. App. 298, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 519

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1911

Docket3275

StatusPublished

This text of 70 S.E. 1126 (Proctor v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Proctor v. State, 70 S.E. 1126, 9 Ga. App. 298, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The evidence authorized the conviction of the defendant, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds.

2. The amendment to the motion for new trial can not be considered, because it is not approved by the trial judge. To “allow” an amendment to a motion for new trial is not equivalent to that unqualified approval which is essential for the purpose of verifying the statements of fact contained in the amendment. Soell v. State, 4 Ga. App. 337 (2), 338 (61 S. E. 514); Merritt v. Merritt, 113 Ga. 569 (38 S. E. 973); Long v. Scanlan, 105 Ga. 425 (31 S. E. 436). Judgment affirmed.

Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Cairo— Judge Singletary. February 11, 1911.

P. C. Andrews, for plaintiff in error. W. J. Willie, solicitor, contra.

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