History
  • No items yet
midpage
Allen v. State
27 Ga. App. 625
Ga. Ct. App.
1921
Check Treatment
Bloodworth, J.

1. An opinion as to what had been proved was not expressed by the judge in charging the jury as set out in grounds 4 and 5 of the motion for a new trial. See, in connection with ground 4, City & Surburban Ry. Co. v. Findley, 76 Ga. 311 (3), 317; Brown v. State, 6 Ga. App. 356 (64 S. E. 1119); Allen v. State, 18 Ga. App. 1 (88 S. E. 100).

2. The excerpts from the charge embraced in grounds 5 and 6 of the motion for a new trial contain no error harmful to the defendant.

3. The brief of counsel for plaintiff in error contains no “ general insistence upon all the grounds of the motion ” (Ga. L. 1921, p. 232), and grounds 7 and 8 are not mentioned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and therefore are at least “ impliedly ” abandoned.

4. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. H. F. Rawls, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Civil Code (1910), § 4334; 91 Ga. 167; 96 Ga. 584; 3 Ga. App. 651 (3); 1 Ga. App. 542 (1).

Roy W. Moore, solicitor, contra.

Case Details

Case Name: Allen v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Nov 17, 1921
Citation: 27 Ga. App. 625
Docket Number: 12732
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.