Troupe v. State

139 S.E. 116, 37 Ga. App. 115, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 505
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 14, 1927·No. 18155·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. A ground of the motion for a new trial was based on denial of a motion to continue the ease on account of the absence of some of the defendant’s witnesses. However, the ground, together with the exhibit attached thereto, fails to show the names of the absent witnesses or where they resided, that they had been subpoenaed, what facts they were expected to prove, or that the movant expected to have their testimony at the next term of the court. It is apparent that the ground failed to show error.

2. The grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence fail to show that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling those grounds, since the affidavits in support of the witnesses upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial was sought failed to give the names of their associates. Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175).

3. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworilv, JJ., concur. N. L. Gillis Jr., W. B. Kent, for plaintiff in error. M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Troupe v. State, 139 S.E. 116, 37 Ga. App. 115, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

139 S.E. 116 (Troupe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dent v. State
158 S.E. 62 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Holder v. State
145 S.E. 469 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)