Stubbs v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stubbs v. State

127 S.E. 478, 33 Ga. App. 604, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 632

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 27, 1925

Docket16212

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.E. 478 (Stubbs 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

Stubbs v. State, 127 S.E. 478, 33 Ga. App. 604, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyx.es, C. J.

1. The ground of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence is defective, in that the supporting affidavits as to the character, etc., of the alleged newly discovered witnesses fail to show their residence, associates, or means of knowledge, as required by section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910. Furthermore, the alleged newly discovered evidence is largely cumulative in character and is not such evidence as would probably cause a different verdict upon another trial of the case.

2. The verdict was axxthorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur. Lester C. Dickson, for plaintiff in error. Claude C. Smith, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Beoyx.es, C. J.

1. The ground of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence is defective, in that the supporting affidavits as to the character, etc., of the alleged newly discovered witnesses fail to show their residence, associates, or means of knowledge, as required by section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910. Furthermore, the alleged newly discovered evidence is largely cumulative in character and is not such evidence as would probably cause a different verdict upon another trial of the case.

2. The verdict was axxthorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur. Lester C. Dickson, for plaintiff in error. Claude C. Smith, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 478, 33 Ga. App. 604, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stubbs-v-state-gactapp-1925.