History
  • No items yet
midpage
Stanford v. State
25 Ga. App. 32
Ga. Ct. App.
1920
Check Treatment
Broyles, C. J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge, and of the facts of the case, contain no reversible error.

2. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this ’ court, a general exception to the entire charge of the court is too broad to he considered, unless the whole charge was erroneous.

3. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err.in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ.; concur. Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. M. L. Felts, for plaintiff in error. R. C. Norman, solicitor-general, contra.

Case Details

Case Name: Stanford v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Mar 3, 1920
Citation: 25 Ga. App. 32
Docket Number: 11186
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.