Widner v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Widner v. State

106 S.E. 547, 151 Ga. 331, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 241

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1921

DocketNo. 2235

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 547 (Widner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Widner v. State, 106 S.E. 547, 151 Ga. 331, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 241 (Ga. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

1. One ground of the motion for new trial in this ease is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, 'and this is furnished by the affidavits of three witnesses; but no affidavits as to the intelligence of the witnesses, their associates, their means of knowledge, their character and credibility, were adduced, in-accordance with the provisions requiring this under the statute contained in section 6086 of the Civil Code, and no facts are shown by affidavits or otherwise to take this ease out of the operation of the rule. Nor was the judge, under thg [332]*332affidavits submitted, compelled to find that the proper degree of diligence had been used to procure this evidence before the trial.

No. 2235. March 16, 1921.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Worrill. Miller superior court. June 12, 1920.

Alton B. Cowart and George B. Cowart, for plaintiff in error. R. A. Denny, attorney-general, B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, Graham, Wright, and R. R. Arnold, contra.

2. The other grounds of the motion are the usual general grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it. It does not appear, however, upon examination of the evidence that the verdict was without evidence to support it.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except George, J., absent.

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

Beck, P. J.

1. One ground of the motion for new trial in this ease is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, 'and this is furnished by the affidavits of three witnesses; but no affidavits as to the intelligence of the witnesses, their associates, their means of knowledge, their character and credibility, were adduced, in-accordance with the provisions requiring this under the statute contained in section 6086 of the Civil Code, and no facts are shown by affidavits or otherwise to take this ease out of the operation of the rule. Nor was the judge, under thg [332]*332affidavits submitted, compelled to find that the proper degree of diligence had been used to procure this evidence before the trial.

No. 2235. March 16, 1921.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Worrill. Miller superior court. June 12, 1920.

Alton B. Cowart and George B. Cowart, for plaintiff in error. R. A. Denny, attorney-general, B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, Graham, Wright, and R. R. Arnold, contra.

2. The other grounds of the motion are the usual general grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it. It does not appear, however, upon examination of the evidence that the verdict was without evidence to support it.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except George, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 547, 151 Ga. 331, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widner-v-state-ga-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack