Smarr v. Kerlin
This text of 95 S.E. 306 (Smarr v. Kerlin) 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.
Opinion
1. There was evidence to support the verdict.
2. The grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon the affidavit of a witness attacking his own testimony delivered at the trial as erroneous (even without considering the counter-affidavit also made by him) are without merit. Declarations of a witness after trial, at variance with his sworn testimony, even when made under oath and explicitly asserting that his testimony on the trial was false, do not constitute a cause for a new trial. Lasseter v. Simpson, 78 Ga. 61 (3 S. E. 243); Munro v. Woody, 78 Ga. 127 (2 S. E. 688); Jordan v. State, 124 Ga. 417 (2) (52 S. E. 768); Hardy v. State, 117 Ga. 40 (43 S. E. 434) Clark v. State, 117 Ga. 254 (8) (43 S. E. 853), and cases there cited. Hayes v. State, 16 Ga. App. 334, 335 (2) (85 S. E. 253); Civil Code, § 5961.
.3. The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 S.E. 306, 21 Ga. App. 813, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smarr-v-kerlin-gactapp-1918.