Schley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Schley v. State

103 S.E. 799, 25 Ga. App. 549, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 72

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 28, 1920

Docket11641

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 799 (Schley 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

Schley v. State, 103 S.E. 799, 25 Ga. App. 549, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The facts in this case are somewhat similar to those in Frost v. State, 120 Ga. 311 (47 S. E. 901). A witness swore in part: “I found the negroes, seven of them, sitting in a ring, with cards in their hands, and I got a half-dollar off the ground.” The motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. "When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court. Bradham v. State 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618). and cit.

Judgment 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.

The facts in this case are somewhat similar to those in Frost v. State, 120 Ga. 311 (47 S. E. 901). A witness swore in part: “I found the negroes, seven of them, sitting in a ring, with cards in their hands, and I got a half-dollar off the ground.” The motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. "When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court. Bradham v. State 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618). and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 799, 25 Ga. App. 549, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schley-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack