14 Ga. App. 824 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1914
1. It does not appear that the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been obtained by the defendant at the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence. At least some of it is not merely cumulative or impeaching; if credited by the jury, it would be likely to produce a different verdict on another trial; and the ends of justice require that a new trial be granted. Dale v. State, 88 Ga. 560, 561 (15 S. E. 287) ; Cooper v. State, 91 Ga. 362, 366 (18 S. E. 303). See also Mitchell v. State, 6 Ga. App. 558 (4) (65 S. E. 326) ; Dougherty v. State, 7 Ga. App. 94 (66 S. E. 276); Holton v. State, 9 Ga. App. 421 (71 S. E. 599).
2. The proof offered at the trial was not sufficient to connect the defendant directly with the cartridges offered in evidence, and the court erred in allowing the cartridges to go before the jury.
3. There are several other exceptions (most of which are without any substantial merit), but since the questions raised by these exceptions ai'e not likely to occur on the next trial, it is unnecessary to discuss them.
Judgment reversed.