Case ID: ga_95/html/0497-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones v. The State.
    Lumpkin, J. — 1. The exercise of due diligence by the accused and his counsel would have enabled them to discover, before accepting a juror put upon them under the na’me of “T. G. Howell,” that he was the same person whose name appeared in the bill of indictment as “Thomas G. Howell,” and that he was a member of the grand jury which found the bill.
    2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict; the newly discovered evidence is not such as to authorize the granting of a new trial; and no error was committed which would justify this court in setting aside the verdict after its approval by the trial judge.
    October 8,1894.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Henry. Chattooga superior court. March term, 1894.
    Wesley Shropshire and Copeland & Jackson, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and W. J. Nunnally, solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.