Case ID: ga_100/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Lumpkin, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRANT v. THE STATE.
    Argued October 8,
    Decided October 19, 1896.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Eisb. Sumter : superior court. May term, 1896.
    
      E. E. '-Hinton, E. A. Nisbet and J. E. Watson, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and ■ J. M. D'uPree, solicitor-general, by L. J. Blalock, contra.
   Lumpkin, J.

1. When, in certifying concerning the correctness of the grounds of a motion for a new trial, the judge below explains or modifies its recitals of fact, this court, in arriving at a knowledge of whiat actually occurred, will be governed by tbe statements in the judge’s certificate.

. 2. Pursuing this course in the present case at the October term, 1895, this court correctly arrived at the facts; and therefore, the application for a rehearing, based upon the ground that it failed to do so, is without merit. Were it otherwise, such application could not be entertained after the expiration of that term.

. 3. The “extraordinary” motion for a new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, when considered in connection with the counter-showing presented by the State, affords no legal canse for setting aside the original judgment.

Application for a rehearing in the original case denied.

Judgment in the present case affirmed.