Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0401-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11474.
    Austin v. The State.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. There is no substantial merit in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. There was some slight evidence which authorized the verdict, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the judge and no error of law appearing, this court is .without authority to interfere with the discretion of the judge in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Indictment for larceny after trust; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. March 22, 1920.

H. F. Rawls, W. J. Grace, for plaintiff in error.

Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.