Case ID: ga-app_18/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hodges, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

7700.
    EARWOOD v. THE STATE.
    1. The judgment of the trial court on the motion for a new trial will not be reversed by this court because of alleged newly discovered evidence merely cumulative and impeaching in character.
    2. The verdict is supported by the evidence."
    Decided October 18, 1916.
    Indictment for trespass; from Paulding superior court — Judge * Bartlett. May 29, 1916..
    
      Q. D. McGregor, A. J. Gamp, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.
   Hodges, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted for trespass. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty. He moved for a new trial, upon the usual grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, etc.,' and upon the further ground that he ha.d newly discovered evidence of certain neighbors of his.

It appears, from an inspection of the record in this case, that the alleged newly discovered evidence was obtained from neighbors of the accused who had lived close to him for years and who say that they knew the land lines. If this newly discovered evidence is true, the plaintiff in error exercised no diligence to produce it before the jury. Presented as newly discovered evidence, it is merely cumulative and impeaching in character, and "can not be considered by this court.

The verdict is authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.