Case ID: ga-app_44/html/0798-01.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

22085.
    Minshew v. The State.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. Under tlie facts of the case the exclusion of the testimony set forth in special ground 1 of the motion for a new trial, even if error, does not require a reversal of the judgment.

2. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in special ground 2 of the motion for a new trial, when considered in the light of the remainder of the charge, is not erroneous for any reason assigned.

Decided February 17, 1932.

McDonald & McDonald, for plaintiff in error.

T. Hoyt Davis, solicitor-general, contra.

3. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial and the general grounds of the motion are not insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and therefore are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.