Case ID: ga_136/html/0791-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fish, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ramey v. Coney, Lovejoy & Company.
    September 22, 1911.
    Claim. Before Judge Martin. Pulaski superior court.. June 25, 1910.
    
      H: E. Coates and Payne, Little & Jones, for plaintiff in error.
    
      M. II. Boyer and Anderson, Felder, Rountree & Wilson, contra.
   Fish, C. J.

There was no error in the admission of evidence. The instructions to the jury upon which error was assigned were not subject to the exceptions taken thereto; nor did the court err in merely failing to explain to the jury the meaning of “the burden of proof,” or of “ground for reasonable suspicion;” nor in merely failing-to instruct the jury as complained of. The verdict was not without evidence to support it; and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jiech, J., absent. The other Justices concur.