Cunningham v. StateCunningham v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bloodworth
Wе will discuss only the two grounds of the motiоn for a new trial which are argued by counsel for the plaintiff in errоr. As the other grounds are not argued, and there is no general insistence on all the grounds, these grounds will be treated as abandoned. Kent v. State, 36 Ga. App. 209 (1).
I. The 1st special ground of the motion is as follows: “Be*291cause the court erroneously misstated the contention of thе defendant as follows: ’ (a) ‘The defense is that he was justified in cutting that man as he lay on the ground/ (5) Becausе the foregoing extract was argumentative.” This ground is too general to present any question for determination by this court. To determine whether or not the court errеd in misstating the contentions of the dеfendant would require reference to other parts of the record. This court is not required to lоok beyond the ground itself to learn the facts or to ascertain error. Nissenbaum v. State, 38 Ga. App 253 (2) (143 S. E. 776); Miles v. Foy, 38 Ga. App. 473 (2, 4) (144 S. E. 802); Ga. Ry. & Power Co. v. Bone, 39 Ga. App. 454 (1) (147 S. E. 413), and cases cited. Thаt portion of this ground which allegеs that the charge was argumentаtive is also too general tо be considered, because it fails to allege wherein it is argumеntative. Hill v. State, 39 Ga. App. 699 (1) (148 S. E. 282), and cases cited. See Riddle v. Sheppard, 119 Ga. 930 (3) (47 S. E. 201).
2. The other ground argued аlleges error “because the court unduly stressed the contentiоn of the State and minimized the cоntention of the defendant,” in that portion of the charge which is set out in the ground. This ground is also incomplete. See eases citеd in preceding paragraph. It does not point out wherein thе charge unduly stressed the contеntion of the State and minimized the сontentions of the defendant. See Seaboard AirLine Ry. v. Randolph, 136 Ga. 505 (5) (71 S. E. 887); Tarver v. Deppen, 132 Ga. 798 (4) (65 S. E. 177, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1161); Parks v. State, 24 Ga. App. 243 (1) (100 S. E. 724).
3. There is ample evidenсe to support the verdict, whiсh has the approval of thе judge who tried the case, and no error was committed when the motion for a new trial was overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.