Renew v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Renew v. State

153 S.E. 378, 41 Ga. App. 487, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 945

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1930

Docket20439

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 378 (Renew 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

Renew v. State, 153 S.E. 378, 41 Ga. App. 487, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 945 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinions

Bloodworth, J.

The verdict is approved by the trial judge, and we can not say that there is no evidence to support it. In Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 562, 563 (28 S. E. 978), Justice Cobb said: “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere where there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which it set forth' in the verdict. While in many cases we would probably not have rendered the verdict returned, and, if we were authorized to pass upon the case as on appeal, would render here a different judgment, still under the established practice of this court as required by the law of this State, we can not overrule a trial judge who, fresh from the atmosphere of the trial, sends to us a record in which he indorses the finding of the jury which tried the case in his presence. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory and doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for us to indorse his judgment in cases of this character.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Lulce, J., dissents.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The verdict is approved by the trial judge, and we can not say that there is no evidence to support it. In Rogers v. State, 101 Ga. 562, 563 (28 S. E. 978), Justice Cobb said: “Applications for new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to evidence are addressed to a sound legal discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. When this discretion has been exercised and the motion for a new trial overruled, this court will not interfere where there is any evidence which would justify the jury in reaching the conclusion which it set forth' in the verdict. While in many cases we would probably not have rendered the verdict returned, and, if we were authorized to pass upon the case as on appeal, would render here a different judgment, still under the established practice of this court as required by the law of this State, we can not overrule a trial judge who, fresh from the atmosphere of the trial, sends to us a record in which he indorses the finding of the jury which tried the case in his presence. This is true even in cases where the evidence might be described as weak, unsatisfactory and doubtful. The wisdom and discretion of the trial judge is sufficient for us to indorse his judgment in cases of this character.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Lulce, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 378, 41 Ga. App. 487, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renew-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack