Case ID: ga-app_36/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Luke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17719.
    Durrence v. The State.
    Decided January 11, 1927.
    Possessing liquor; from city court of Baxley — Judge Speer. September 4, 1926.
    
      H. H. Elders, J. B. Moore, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wade H. Watson, solicitor, contra.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1230, n. 73.
   Luke, J.

1. As regards the alleged newly discovered evidence, the affidavits of both the defendant and his counsel fail to state that the evidence could not, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been discovered by them before the verdict. The court, therefore, had the discretion to overrule that ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.