Rucker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rucker v. State

65 S.E. 1068, 7 Ga. App. 47, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 527

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rucker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 Ga. App. 140 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 9, 1909·No. 2163·Published

Opinion

Hiel, O. J.

1. Tlie first ground of tlie amended motion for a new trial is not verified by tlie trial court, and therefore will not be considered.

2. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial because of the alleged newly discovered testimony, the testimony being both cumulative and impeaching.

3. No error appears, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hiel, O. J.

1. Tlie first ground of tlie amended motion for a new trial is not verified by tlie trial court, and therefore will not be considered.

2. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial because of the alleged newly discovered testimony, the testimony being both cumulative and impeaching.

3. No error appears, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Rucker v. State, 65 S.E. 1068, 7 Ga. App. 47, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

65 S.E. 1068 (Rucker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.