Town of Sparks v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Town of Sparks v. Williams

104 S.E. 576, 25 Ga. App. 705, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 157

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1920

Docket11568

StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.E. 576 (Town of Sparks v. Williams) 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

Town of Sparks v. Williams, 104 S.E. 576, 25 Ga. App. 705, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

1. There was no error, as complained in ground 7 of the motion for a new trial, in charging the jury that “the plaintiff cannot recover of the defendant, the Town of Sparks, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the jury that the employees of the defendant, the Town of Sparks, exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence.” This is a correct statement of law applicable to the case.

2. Ground 8 of the motion for a new trial complains that “the following charge of the court is error: ‘If you believe, from the evidence in this case, that the defendant, the Town of Sparks, left open a hole on the side of the streets as alleged in plaintiff’s petition, etc.,’” because this charge led the jury to believe that if the hole was not on the sidewalk as alleged in the petition, and was on the .side of the street, as charged by the court, the plain[707]*707tiff would be entitled to recover. Taken together with the whole charge of the court, which was exceedingly fair to the defendant in the ease, this assignment of error is purely technical and without merit.

3. The 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds. There was evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins., P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Smith, J.

1. There was no error, as complained in ground 7 of the motion for a new trial, in charging the jury that “the plaintiff cannot recover of the defendant, the Town of Sparks, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the jury that the employees of the defendant, the Town of Sparks, exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence.” This is a correct statement of law applicable to the case.

2. Ground 8 of the motion for a new trial complains that “the following charge of the court is error: ‘If you believe, from the evidence in this case, that the defendant, the Town of Sparks, left open a hole on the side of the streets as alleged in plaintiff’s petition, etc.,’” because this charge led the jury to believe that if the hole was not on the sidewalk as alleged in the petition, and was on the .side of the street, as charged by the court, the plain[707]*707tiff would be entitled to recover. Taken together with the whole charge of the court, which was exceedingly fair to the defendant in the ease, this assignment of error is purely technical and without merit.

3. The 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds. There was evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins., P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 576, 25 Ga. App. 705, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-sparks-v-williams-gactapp-1920.