Case ID: ga_121/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fish, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miller et al. v. The State.
    Argued October 17, —
    Decided November 10, 1904.
    Indictment for burglary. Before Judge Seabrook. Effingham superior court. June 28, 1904.
    
      J. Hartridge Smith and Twiggs & Oliver, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Livingston Kenan, solicitor-general, contra.
   Fish, P. J.

1. A motion for a new trial can not be amended in the Supreme Court by adding new assignments of error.

2. When a designated portion of a charge contains several distinct propositions of law, one or more of which is correct in the abstract, a mere general assignment of error upon the whole of such portion of the charge is without merit. Anderson v. Southern Ry. Co., 107 Ga. 500.

3. The evidence warranted the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

•All the Justices concur. '