Wall v. Crown Cotton Mills

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wall v. Crown Cotton Mills

65 S.E. 788, 6 Ga. App. 732, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 434

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 5, 1909

Docket1879

StatusPublished

This text of 65 S.E. 788 (Wall v. Crown Cotton Mills) 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

Wall v. Crown Cotton Mills, 65 S.E. 788, 6 Ga. App. 732, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The only meritorious exception in the record is that the court charged the jury as follows: “If you find there are conflicts in the evidence, material conflicts, or conflicts about material matters, you will reconcile those; if you can, so as to make all witnesses speak the truth, without imputing perjury to any one. If you can not do this, then it would be your duty to believe that witness or those witnesses who have the best opportunity of knowing the facts about which they testify, and the least inducement to swear falsely.’-’ This was error; and in the light of the conflicting state of the evidence, and of the fact that the testimony of the plaintiff himself entered largely into the conflict, it was reversible error. Southern Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hudson, 113 Ga. 434 (38 S. E. 964); Hudson v. Best, 104 Ga. 131 (30 S. E. 688), and cit.

Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

The only meritorious exception in the record is that the court charged the jury as follows: “If you find there are conflicts in the evidence, material conflicts, or conflicts about material matters, you will reconcile those; if you can, so as to make all witnesses speak the truth, without imputing perjury to any one. If you can not do this, then it would be your duty to believe that witness or those witnesses who have the best opportunity of knowing the facts about which they testify, and the least inducement to swear falsely.’-’ This was error; and in the light of the conflicting state of the evidence, and of the fact that the testimony of the plaintiff himself entered largely into the conflict, it was reversible error. Southern Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hudson, 113 Ga. 434 (38 S. E. 964); Hudson v. Best, 104 Ga. 131 (30 S. E. 688), and cit.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 788, 6 Ga. App. 732, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-crown-cotton-mills-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack