Case ID: ga-app_30/html/0785-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

14568.
    GOLIGHTLY et al. v. REEVES.
    Under the evidence in the record this court can not hold that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the general grounds of the motion.
    Decided October 3, 1923.
    Complaint; from Campbell superior court — Judge Hutcheson. December 2, 1922.
    
      J. F. Golightly, J. H. Longino, for plaintiffs.
    
      Lawrence Camp, Claude C. Smith, for defendant.
   Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains no special grounds. “ Under the facts as disclosed by the record, this court cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without support from the testimony or so far contrary to it as to authorize this court to determine that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. The law allows him to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials when errors of law have been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.