Speer v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Speer v. State

74 S.E. 95, 10 Ga. App. 817, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 704

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1912

Docket3965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 95 (Speer 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

Speer v. State, 74 S.E. 95, 10 Ga. App. 817, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

The evidence authorized the conviction, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Even if the newly discovered testimony which it was sought to present by affidavit is not merely cumulative and impeaching, the judge did not err in overruling the ground of--the motion for new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, inasmuch as the character of the affiants was not vouched 'for, and there was no affidavit to show that the facts alleged to have been ascertained subsequently to the trial were unknown to the defendant and his counsel at the time of the trial, or that this evidence could not have been obtained in time for the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence.

Judgment affirmed.

Indictment for sale of liquor; fr6m Spalding superior court-judge E. T. Daniel.

December 18, 1911. W. H. Connor, for plaintiff in error. J. W. Wise, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Russell, J.

The evidence authorized the conviction, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Even if the newly discovered testimony which it was sought to present by affidavit is not merely cumulative and impeaching, the judge did not err in overruling the ground of--the motion for new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, inasmuch as the character of the affiants was not vouched 'for, and there was no affidavit to show that the facts alleged to have been ascertained subsequently to the trial were unknown to the defendant and his counsel at the time of the trial, or that this evidence could not have been obtained in time for the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence.

Judgment affirmed.

Indictment for sale of liquor; fr6m Spalding superior court-judge E. T. Daniel.

December 18, 1911. W. H. Connor, for plaintiff in error. J. W. Wise, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 95, 10 Ga. App. 817, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speer-v-state-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack