18 Ga. App. 12 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1916
1. One ground of the motion for a new trial is that a witness for the State was allowed to testify that “he had known the prosecutrix, and that he knew of nothing wrong with her.” The only objection that the defendant made to this evidence at the time it was offered was that it was not in rebuttal of any testimony offered by the defendant. In view of the severe cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her “high-kicking” propensity, her “cutting up” at night in the defendant’s store when the graphophone was playing, and her numerous automobile rides with the defendant, the admission of this evidence was not erroneous for the reason given at the time of its admission.
2. In the ground of the motion for a new trial which complains of a remark made by the solicitor during his argument it is not shown or alleged that the remark was not authorized by the evidence in the ease, or that it was improper for any other reason, or that it was hurtful to the accused. Consequently it does not appear that the court erred in
3. The evidence authorized the verdict; no material error of law occurred upon the trial, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.