Starr v. Estes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Starr v. Estes

161 S.E. 654, 44 Ga. App. 354, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 721

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1931

Docket21694

StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.E. 654 (Starr v. Estes) 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

Starr v. Estes, 161 S.E. 654, 44 Ga. App. 354, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyx.es, C.' J.

’ 1. Tlie admission of the evidence set out in special grounds 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial was not- error for any reason assigned.

2. Conceding (but not deciding) that it was improper for counsel for the plaintiff in his concluding argument to read to the jury sections of a certain act' of the General Assembly, the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, as requested by counsel for the defendant, that it was. improper for the plaintiff’s counsel to read the law to them does not require the grant of a new trial, since there was no motion for a mistrial. Southern Ry. Co. v. Ray, 155 Ga. 579, 582, 583 (118 S. E. 53). See, also, Mays v. Mays, 153 Ga. 836 (5) (113 S. E. 154).

3. In the light of the charge of the court as a whole and the facts of the case, the various excerpts from the charge assigned as error show no reason for a reversal of the judgment.

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

Judgment affirmed,

Luke, 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

Beoyx.es, C.' J.

’ 1. Tlie admission of the evidence set out in special grounds 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial was not- error for any reason assigned.

2. Conceding (but not deciding) that it was improper for counsel for the plaintiff in his concluding argument to read to the jury sections of a certain act' of the General Assembly, the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, as requested by counsel for the defendant, that it was. improper for the plaintiff’s counsel to read the law to them does not require the grant of a new trial, since there was no motion for a mistrial. Southern Ry. Co. v. Ray, 155 Ga. 579, 582, 583 (118 S. E. 53). See, also, Mays v. Mays, 153 Ga. 836 (5) (113 S. E. 154).

3. In the light of the charge of the court as a whole and the facts of the case, the various excerpts from the charge assigned as error show no reason for a reversal of the judgment.

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

Judgment affirmed,

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 654, 44 Ga. App. 354, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-v-estes-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack