Loomis v. Edwards

Assuming for the sake of argument that the trial judge had authority to vacate his order granting a nisi on the extraordinary motion for a new trial, and to do so without affording movant a hearing on the question, I am of the opinion that the judge erred in refusing to grant a rule nisi “as a matter of law.” The judge’s order denying the rule nisi is as follows: “The defendant was convicted of the offense of riot, his motion for a new trial was denied and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Loomis v. State, 51 S. E. 2d, 33. An extraordinary motion was filed by the defendant. The indictment…