Watson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watson v. State

10 S.E.2d 717, 63 Ga. App. 252, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 43

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1940

Docket28429.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 S.E.2d 717 (Watson 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

Watson v. State, 10 S.E.2d 717, 63 Ga. App. 252, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. One ground of the motion for a new trial is based on alleged newly discovered evidence, and the affidavits introduced by the defendant and the State authorized the judge, as a trior of the facts, to find that the new witness was not worthy of credit and belief; that the defendant had not used due diligence; and that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not available as a cause for a new trial, because it did not appear that the evidence was newly discovered, but that a certain new witness by whom the facts could be proved was unknown until after the trial. The judge did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Wright v. State, 49 Ga. App. 342 (2) (175 S. E. 487); Fortune v. State, 50 Ga. App. 204 (4) (177 S. E. 368); Bailey v. State, 47 Ga. App. 856 (171 S. E. 874).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. One ground of the motion for a new trial is based on alleged newly discovered evidence, and the affidavits introduced by the defendant and the State authorized the judge, as a trior of the facts, to find that the new witness was not worthy of credit and belief; that the defendant had not used due diligence; and that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not available as a cause for a new trial, because it did not appear that the evidence was newly discovered, but that a certain new witness by whom the facts could be proved was unknown until after the trial. The judge did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Wright v. State, 49 Ga. App. 342 (2) (175 S. E. 487); Fortune v. State, 50 Ga. App. 204 (4) (177 S. E. 368); Bailey v. State, 47 Ga. App. 856 (171 S. E. 874).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 717, 63 Ga. App. 252, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack