Wallace v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wallace v. State

87 S.E. 681, 17 Ga. App. 434, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 988

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1916

Docket6541

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 681 (Wallace 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

Wallace v. State, 87 S.E. 681, 17 Ga. App. 434, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 988 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Where the court declines to allow an amendment which is offered, it does not become a part of the record in the case, and this court can not consider what purports to be a copy of it, appearing in the transcript of the record. Taylor v. McLaughlin, 120 Ga. 703, 706 (48 S. E. 203). “The rule is well settled that where a party offers an amendment to his pleadings and the judge declines to allow it, the proffered amendment can not be specified as record.” Schaeffer v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 282, 283 (64 S. E. 1107); Upchurch v. Nichols, 15 Ga. App. 359 (83 S. E. 273). In this ea$e there is an attempt to bring up certain rejected affidavits in relation to newly discovered evidence, by specifying them as part of the record; but even though these affidavits, as a matter of fact, were not sworn to, they must be treated as having been properly sworn to and signed, because they so appear as incorporated in the bill of exceptions verified by the trial judge.

2. A motion for a new trial is amendable at any time before the conclusion of the hearing thereon. Consequently it was error to refuse an amendment to the extraordinary motion for a new trial in the present case (based upon the ground of alleged newly discovered testimony), which amendment attempted to withdraw a contradictory statement in the motion, and another amendment, tendering the brief of the evidence upon the trial; and it was also error to decline to allow affidavits in support of the motion to be attached thereto.

3. Aside from the question whether the testimony which it was sought to adduce was such as to require the grant of a new trial, or whether it was insufficient for that purpose, the dismissal of the motion before it was perfected precluded a judicial consideration of the completed motion and deprived the movant of the exercise of a judicial discretion to which he was entitled. Judgment reversed.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Carrollton— Judge Beall. April 2, 1915.

Smith, Reese & Smith, for plaintiff in error. C. F. Roof, solicitor, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Where the court declines to allow an amendment which is offered, it does not become a part of the record in the case, and this court can not consider what purports to be a copy of it, appearing in the transcript of the record. Taylor v. McLaughlin, 120 Ga. 703, 706 (48 S. E. 203). “The rule is well settled that where a party offers an amendment to his pleadings and the judge declines to allow it, the proffered amendment can not be specified as record.” Schaeffer v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 282, 283 (64 S. E. 1107); Upchurch v. Nichols, 15 Ga. App. 359 (83 S. E. 273). In this ea$e there is an attempt to bring up certain rejected affidavits in relation to newly discovered evidence, by specifying them as part of the record; but even though these affidavits, as a matter of fact, were not sworn to, they must be treated as having been properly sworn to and signed, because they so appear as incorporated in the bill of exceptions verified by the trial judge.

2. A motion for a new trial is amendable at any time before the conclusion of the hearing thereon. Consequently it was error to refuse an amendment to the extraordinary motion for a new trial in the present case (based upon the ground of alleged newly discovered testimony), which amendment attempted to withdraw a contradictory statement in the motion, and another amendment, tendering the brief of the evidence upon the trial; and it was also error to decline to allow affidavits in support of the motion to be attached thereto.

3. Aside from the question whether the testimony which it was sought to adduce was such as to require the grant of a new trial, or whether it was insufficient for that purpose, the dismissal of the motion before it was perfected precluded a judicial consideration of the completed motion and deprived the movant of the exercise of a judicial discretion to which he was entitled. Judgment reversed.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Carrollton— Judge Beall. April 2, 1915.

Smith, Reese & Smith, for plaintiff in error. C. F. Roof, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 681, 17 Ga. App. 434, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack