Case ID: ga-app_22/html/0563-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodwoeth, J. Bboyles, P. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9335.
    Western & Atlantic Railroad Company v. Thomasson.
   Bloodwoeth, J.

There is some evidence to support the verdict in this case; it is approved by the trial judge; and while there are inaccuracies in some of the excerpts from the charge, of which complaint is made, these errors are not so material, when considered in connection with the entire charge and in the light of the evidence, as to justify this court in holding that the judge erred in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Harwell, J., concurs.

Bboyles, P. J.,

.dissenting. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence which authorized a recovery for the plaintiff was very weak, the great weight of the evidence being in favor of the defendant. Under these circumstances I think that the errors in the charge of the court, which in the opinion of the majority of this court ,are denominated “inaccuracies^” were sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant’s cause to require a new trial.

Decided July 31, 1918.

Action for damages; from Bartow superior court—Judge Tarver. September 8, 1917.

Tye, Peeples & Tye, Neel & Neel, for plaintiff in error. ■

Buford Boykin, Sidney Holderness, Finley & Henson, contra.