Ward & Tinsley v. Jennings

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ward & Tinsley v. Jennings

92 S.E. 949, 20 Ga. App. 281, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 865

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1917

Docket8405

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 949 (Ward & Tinsley v. Jennings) 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

Ward & Tinsley v. Jennings, 92 S.E. 949, 20 Ga. App. 281, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The only ground of the motion for a new trial, other than the general grounds, is based upon an alleged error in the charge of the court. The portion of the charge excepted to is not erroneous for any reason assigned. This ruling is not in conflict with the former decision in this case (18 Ga. App. 323, 89 S. E. 350), where it was held by this court that a somewhat similar charge was error for the reason that it was not authorized by the evidence. Upon the last trial of the ease the evidence was different from that adduced on the first trial, and this time authorized the instructions given.

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and, it having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The only ground of the motion for a new trial, other than the general grounds, is based upon an alleged error in the charge of the court. The portion of the charge excepted to is not erroneous for any reason assigned. This ruling is not in conflict with the former decision in this case (18 Ga. App. 323, 89 S. E. 350), where it was held by this court that a somewhat similar charge was error for the reason that it was not authorized by the evidence. Upon the last trial of the ease the evidence was different from that adduced on the first trial, and this time authorized the instructions given.

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and, it having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 949, 20 Ga. App. 281, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-tinsley-v-jennings-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack