22 Ga. App. 743 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1918
1. Under the Penal Code, every indictment of the grand jury is to be deemed sufficiently technical and correct which states the offense in the terms and language of the code, or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury, and that the accused may be apprised with reasonable certainty of the nature of the offense charged. Park’s Ann. Penal Code, § 954, and authorities
3. The failure of the court to charge on the subject of impeachment of witnesses was not error, there being no timely written request for such a charge.
4. It was not error for the court to fail to charge on the contentions of the defendant as specified and set forth in the special ground of the motion for a new trial complaining of such failure.
5. The admission of testimony as complained of in the 4th special ground of the motion for a new trial was not erroneous for any reason assigned, and a portion of it was clearly admissible.
6. The admission of testimony as complained of in the 9th special ground of the' motion for a new trial, if error, was not so prejudicial as. to require a new trial of the case.
7. A ground of a motion for a new trial which complains of the exclusion of oral testimony must show that a pertinent question loas asked and 'that the answer was ruled out. Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (43 S. E. 712). Under this ruling' the 14th special ground of the motion for a new trial is .fatally defective, and can not be considered.
.8. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, and 16th special grounds of the motion' for a new trial complain of the admission of certain testimony; but in some of them it is not shown that the testimony was objected to by counsel for the defendant, and in none of them is it shown what objections were made to the trial court at the time the evidence was offered or admitted.' These grounds, therefore, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, can not be considered.
9. The alleged newly discovered evidence' was cumulative and impeaching in its character, and, moreover, the necessary supporting affidavits as to the good character, associates, etc., of some of the newly discovered witnesses, were lacking. It does not appear that the judge abused his broad discretion in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based upon such alleged newly discovered evidence.
10. The conviction of the defendant was authorized by the evidence, and has been approved by the trial court. ,
Judgment affirmed.