Pryor v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pryor v. State

149 S.E. 177, 40 Ga. App. 225, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 95

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1929

Docket19837

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 S.E. 177 (Pryor 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

Pryor v. State, 149 S.E. 177, 40 Ga. App. 225, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court of which complaint' is made in special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial states a correct proposition of law. “A correct statement of law embraced in a charge to the jury is not erroneous because the court failed in the same connection to give to the jury other appropriate instructions.” Conley v. State, 21 Ga. App. 134 (94 S. E. 261), and eit. If additional instructions were desired, a proper request therefor should have been presented to the judge as provided by section 1087 of the Penal Code and section 6084 of the Civil Code (1910).

2. Special ground 2 of the motion for a new trial attacks the entire charge of the court. Such an assignment of error is too vague and general to raise any question for decision in this court. Bond v. Sullivan, 133 Ga. 160 (6) (65 S. E. 376, 134 Am. St. R. 199); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Jones, 132 Ga. 201 (12) (63 S. E. 834); Newman v. Day, 108 Ga. 813 (2) (34 S. E. 167); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Nellwoood Lumber Co., 21 Ga. App. 209 (2) (94 S. E. 86).

3. The 3d special ground of the motion is but an enlargement of the general grounds. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court of which complaint' is made in special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial states a correct proposition of law. “A correct statement of law embraced in a charge to the jury is not erroneous because the court failed in the same connection to give to the jury other appropriate instructions.” Conley v. State, 21 Ga. App. 134 (94 S. E. 261), and eit. If additional instructions were desired, a proper request therefor should have been presented to the judge as provided by section 1087 of the Penal Code and section 6084 of the Civil Code (1910).

2. Special ground 2 of the motion for a new trial attacks the entire charge of the court. Such an assignment of error is too vague and general to raise any question for decision in this court. Bond v. Sullivan, 133 Ga. 160 (6) (65 S. E. 376, 134 Am. St. R. 199); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Jones, 132 Ga. 201 (12) (63 S. E. 834); Newman v. Day, 108 Ga. 813 (2) (34 S. E. 167); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Nellwoood Lumber Co., 21 Ga. App. 209 (2) (94 S. E. 86).

3. The 3d special ground of the motion is but an enlargement of the general grounds. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E. 177, 40 Ga. App. 225, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack