Young v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Young v. State

111 S.E. 689, 28 Ga. App. 472, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 616

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket13314

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 689 (Young 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

Young v. State, 111 S.E. 689, 28 Ga. App. 472, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Under the facts of this case the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no error that would require the grant of a new trial, either because of the failure of the judge to charge or in the excerpt from the charge of which complaint is made.

2. “ Under the facts disclosed by the record, this court cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without support from the testimony or so far contrary to it as to authorize this court to determine that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. The law allows him to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials when errors of law have been committed, ■ or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (1) (17 S. E. 68); Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Under the facts of this case the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no error that would require the grant of a new trial, either because of the failure of the judge to charge or in the excerpt from the charge of which complaint is made.

2. “ Under the facts disclosed by the record, this court cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without support from the testimony or so far contrary to it as to authorize this court to determine that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. The law allows him to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials when errors of law have been committed, ■ or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (1) (17 S. E. 68); Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 689, 28 Ga. App. 472, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack