Thomas v. State
91 S.E. 287, 19 Ga. App. 242, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 74
Opinion
Whether an extraordinary motion for a new trial, based upon the ground of newly discovered testimony, should be granted or refused rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court; and this court is not inclined to interfere with the exercise of that discretion, where the newly discovered evidence is largely, if not entirely, im-. peaching and cumulative in character. Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thomas v. State, 91 S.E. 287, 19 Ga. App. 242, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).
91 S.E. 287 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Whitus v. State
149 S.E.2d 130 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Williams v. State
56 S.E.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Payne v. State
44 S.E.2d 562 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Brannon v. State
9 S.E.2d 152 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Darby v. State
100 S.E. 656 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)