Shahan v. State

136 S.E. 798, 36 Ga. App. 315, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 51
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 11, 1927·No. 17782·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In view of the judge’s note to ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which complains of the admission of certain evidence over the objections of the defendant, the admission of the evidence was not error for any reason stated to the court at the time the evidence was offered.

2. The alleged newly discovered evidence is impeaching in its character, and the affidavits in support of the new witnesses are defective, in that they fail to give the names of their associates. Civil Code (1910), § 6086. The trial judge, therefore, did not abuse his discretion in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based upon such evidence. Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175); Crosby v. State, 34 Ga. App. 235 (128 S. E. 817).

3. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Shahan v. State, 136 S.E. 798, 36 Ga. App. 315, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

136 S.E. 798 (Shahan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whatley v. Henry
16 S.E.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)