Roberts v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberts v. State

148 S.E. 282, 39 Ga. App. 693, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 520

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Roberts v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 41 Ga. App. 364 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 15, 1929·No. 19629·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court a refusal to direct a verdict is never error.

2. In the light of the facts of the case and the entire charge of the court, the alleged errors of commission and omission in the charge do not require a reversal of the judgment.

3. The evidence, while in sharp conflict, authorized the verdict, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court a refusal to direct a verdict is never error.

2. In the light of the facts of the case and the entire charge of the court, the alleged errors of commission and omission in the charge do not require a reversal of the judgment.

3. The evidence, while in sharp conflict, authorized the verdict, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Roberts v. State, 148 S.E. 282, 39 Ga. App. 693, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

148 S.E. 282 (Roberts v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.