Case ID: ga-app_28/html/0475-01.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

13327.
    Drake v. The State.
    Decided April 11, 1922.
    Indictment for adultery, etc.; from Seminole superior court.— Judge Worrill. January 21, 1922.
    
      J. E. Drake, W. V. Custer, for plaintiff in error.
    
      B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold, E. C. Hill, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. The court did not err in overruling those grounds of the motion for a new trial which were based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, it not appearing by affidavit of the accused and his counsel that they did not know of the existence of such evidence before the trial. Park’s Ann. Code, § 6086.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of- law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.