Scott v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scott v. State

148 S.E. 924, 40 Ga. App. 144, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 54

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 9, 1929

Docket19761

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 924 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 148 S.E. 924, 40 Ga. App. 144, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 54 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

“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 when 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.” Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732). See Smith v. Barr, 32 Ga. App. 53 (8) (122 S. E. 626); Johnson v. State, 33 Ga. App. 148 (125 S. E. 734).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

“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 when 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.” Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732). See Smith v. Barr, 32 Ga. App. 53 (8) (122 S. E. 626); Johnson v. State, 33 Ga. App. 148 (125 S. E. 734).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 924, 40 Ga. App. 144, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack