Case ID: ga_125/html/0030-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cobb, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walker v. The State.
    Argued February 20,
    Decided March 22, 1906.
    Accusatio'n of selling liquor. . Before Judge Hammond. City court of Griffin. December 26, 1905.
    
      T. W. Thurman, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T, E, Patterson, solicitor, contra.
   Cobb, P. J.

1. When an amendment is offered to a motion for a neW trial, it is the better practice to allow the amendment and overrule the motion, if no ground in the original or amended motion is meritorious. But a refusal to allow an amendment to a motion for a new trial will not work a reversal of the judgment, when the amendment offered did not contain a meritorious ground.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no sufficient reason appears for reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.