Troupe v. State
This text of 139 S.E. 116 (Troupe 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
139 S.E. 116, 37 Ga. App. 115, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troupe-v-state-gactapp-1927.