White v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. State

111 S.E. 684, 28 Ga. App. 467, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 610

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket1329

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 684 (White 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

White v. State, 111 S.E. 684, 28 Ga. App. 467, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. An examination of what purports to be a brief of the evidence in this case will clearly show that there was no bona fide effort to make “ a condensed and succinct brief of the testimony” as required by section 6093 of the Civil Code (1910). What purports to be such brief of evidence contains objections to the admission of evidence, rulings of the court on various questions, colloquies between'court and counsel, and other immaterial matter. Because of the lack of a proper brief of the evidence this court cannot consider any of the questions raised in the motion for a new trial which depend for a determination on a consideration of the evidence. Phillips v. Bagwell Motor-Car Co., 22 Ga. App. 488 (2) (96 S. E. 334), and cases cited; Trueheart v. State, 13 Ga. App. 661 (2) (79 S. E. 755), and cases cited.

2. ■ There is no merit in any ground of the motion for a new trial not disposed of above.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. An examination of what purports to be a brief of the evidence in this case will clearly show that there was no bona fide effort to make “ a condensed and succinct brief of the testimony” as required by section 6093 of the Civil Code (1910). What purports to be such brief of evidence contains objections to the admission of evidence, rulings of the court on various questions, colloquies between'court and counsel, and other immaterial matter. Because of the lack of a proper brief of the evidence this court cannot consider any of the questions raised in the motion for a new trial which depend for a determination on a consideration of the evidence. Phillips v. Bagwell Motor-Car Co., 22 Ga. App. 488 (2) (96 S. E. 334), and cases cited; Trueheart v. State, 13 Ga. App. 661 (2) (79 S. E. 755), and cases cited.

2. ■ There is no merit in any ground of the motion for a new trial not disposed of above.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 684, 28 Ga. App. 467, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack