Wade v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wade v. State

148 S.E. 608, 39 Ga. App. 812, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 566

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 11, 1929

Docket19684

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 608 (Wade 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

Wade v. State, 148 S.E. 608, 39 Ga. App. 812, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 566 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new-trial must be complete and understandable within itself; and when so incomplete as to require the reviewing court to refer to the brief of the evidence or to some other part of the record in order to ascertain whether the. ruling complained of was error, the ground will not be considered. In the instant case the two special grounds of the motion for a new trial complain of the admission of certain evidence, but the evidence is not set forth in the grounds nor attached thereto as exhibits. It follows that the grounds are too defective to raise any question for the determination of this court.

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

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, a special ground of a motion for a new-trial must be complete and understandable within itself; and when so incomplete as to require the reviewing court to refer to the brief of the evidence or to some other part of the record in order to ascertain whether the. ruling complained of was error, the ground will not be considered. In the instant case the two special grounds of the motion for a new trial complain of the admission of certain evidence, but the evidence is not set forth in the grounds nor attached thereto as exhibits. It follows that the grounds are too defective to raise any question for the determination of this court.

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

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 608, 39 Ga. App. 812, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-state-gactapp-1929.