Case ID: ga-app_32/html/0446-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

15526.
    Roach v. Williams.
    Decided June 10, 1924.
    Action for damages; from city court of Savannah — Judge Freeman. February 20, 1924.
    
      Anderson, Gann & Gann, Mclntire, Walsh & Bernstein, for plaintiff in error. Paul Husillo, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. All the special grounds of the motion for a new trial are based upon alleged errors in the charge of the court. When the excerpts complained of are considered in connection with the remainder of the charge and the facts of the case, none of them requires a reversal of the judgment below.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.