22 Ga. App. 789 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1918
1. The demurrer,, to the plea of autrefois convict was properly sustained. In drawing the amendment to the accusation the' solicitor followed the one under consideration by this court in Hudgins v. State, 22 Ga. App. 242 (95 S. E. 875). Counsel for the plaintiff in error asked this court to overrule or modify the decision rendered in that ease, but, after a careful consideration of the ruling there made, this court is convinced that it should not be changed.
3. This court can not say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to continue the case on the ground that the defendant was surprised by the amendment to the accusation.
4. The remarks of the solicitor, complained of in ground 8, were entirely legitimate, and the court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial because of them.
5. There was no error in refusing to allow certain witnesses to testify that a third person, who had left the State, told- them that the liquor found on the premises of the defendant belonged to him. ^This was clearly objectionable as hearsay. See, in this connection, Burrage v. State, 21 Oct. App. 508 (94 S. E. 644).
6. Grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial can not be considered, because not approved by the trial judge.
7. There is some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge.
Judgment affirmed.