Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Georgia Caselaw:
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources

This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks! Georgia Caselaw
Extraordinary motion for new trial. Before Judge Fetzer. Sylvania City Court. May 18, 1953.
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. On February 4, 1953, this court dismissed the writ of error in the case numbered 34500, Glisson v. State, for want of prosecution, the effect of which was to affirm the defendant's conviction of selling whisky. The present writ of error is here upon exception to the trial court's judgment denying the defendant's extraordinary motion for a new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence.
1. Where, after this court has affirmed a conviction of selling whisky, the defendant files an extraordinary motion for new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, and the motion is overruled, this court will not hold that in so ruling the trial court abused its discretion, where the requisite affidavits as to the residence, means of knowledge, character, and credibility of the witness on whose evidence the motion is based are not included in or attached to such motion. Carpenter v. State, 35 Ga. App. 349 (133 S. E. 350); Childers v. State, 38 Ga. App. 204 (143 S. E. 511), and citations; Trammell v. Shirley, 38 Ga. App. 710 (145 S. E. 486); Williams v. State, 34 Ga. App. 174 (128 S. E. 589); Code 70-205.
2. While an extraordinary motion for new trial may raise questions, both of law and of fact, and the present motion raises only a question of fact, the general assignment of error, "to the judgment of the court overruling said motion for a new trial as amended plaintiff in error then and there excepted and now excepts and assigns the same as error," is sufficient to require this court to review the judgment of the trial court. 798 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1953. [88 Ga.
Butler, Stevens & Co. v. Hall, 7 Ga. App. 777 (68 S. E. 331). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, on the ground that the assignment of error is too general to raise a question for review, is denied.
E. W. Hill, Solicitor, contra.
W. C. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
Saturday May 23 04:11 EDT

This site exists because of donors like you.


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!

Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004