Case ID: ga-app_24/html/0700-02.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

11037.
    Pitts et al. v. Smith.
    Decided January 27, 1920.
    Trover; from Newton superior court—Judge Hutcheson. October 11, 1919.
    
      Rogers & Knox, for plaintiff in error.
    
      King & Johnson, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. Neither of the excerpts from the charge of the court complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and • the facts of the case, contains material error.

2. The 4th and 5th special grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely amplification of the usual general grounds. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.