Legal Opinion

Wright v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 18, 1916No. 7846PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Indictment for sale of liquor; from Emanuel superior court-judge Hardeman. August 25, 1916.

1Opinion of the CourtHodges, J.

The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the alleged newly discovered evidence, being merely cumulative and impeaching in its nature, did not require a new trial. “The discretion of a trial judge in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be controlled, unless manifestly abused.” Tilley v. Cox, 119 Ga. 867, 872 (47 S. E. 219). Where a motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, and affidavits are introduced, sustaining and disputing this ground of the motion, “the trial judge is the trior of the facts, -and it is his province…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tilley v. CoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Hayes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Salter v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. Wesley v. Lewis Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  3. North v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API