7 S.E.2d 285 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1940
The evidence supported the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Error is assigned because a witness who had testified as to the position of the defendant's body in the car immediately after the wreck was allowed to give his inference, drawn from what he saw of the position of the bodies of the two men in the car immediately after the wreck, as to who had been driving the car. He stated that in his opinion the defendant had been driving. This question was asked by the State after the defendant's counsel had asked the witness if it was possible to tell who was driving and he had replied that it was not. "Where a nonexpert witness has observed the matter in issue, and from the nature of the circumstances he can not adequately state or recite the data so fully and accurately as to put the jury completely in the witness's place and enable them to equally well draw the inference, it is allowable for the witness to give his inference, in connection with the facts upon which it is predicated." Nunn
v. State,
The assignment of error in respect to an abstract principle of law, given in charge to the jury, concerning the duty of a driver *726 to travel on the right side of the road, is not meritorious for the reason that the court expressly charged that unless the driver was driving on the left side of the road at the time of the collision with the other car he would not be guilty. The court expressly charged that unless the jury found "that the performance of the unlawful act was the proximate cause of the cars going together" they would not be authorized to convict.
The evidence supported the verdict and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J.,concur.