Case ID: ga-app_37/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

18287.
    HENDRIX v. THE STATE.
    There being evidence to support the verdict of guilty, this court will not disturb it.
    Criminal Daw, 16 C. J. p. 922, n. 3; p. 929, n. 86; p. 930, n. 93; 17 C. J. p. 252, n. 16; p. 255, n. 55; p. 271, n. 41.
    Decided July 26, 1927.
    Making liquor; from Evans superior court—Judge Daniel. May 13, 1927.
    
      P. M. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. T. Grice, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial contains the general grounds only. “The decision of every issue of fact is exclusively for the jury.” Davis v. Kirkland, 1 Ga. App. 5 (1) (58 S. E. 209). “No principle of law is founded upon better reason or has been more strictly adhered to by this court than that the jury are the proper judges of the weight and sufficiency of testimony and of the credibility of witnesses, and this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury where there is evidence to support its findings. Stricklin v. Crawley, 1 Ga. App. 139 (58 S. E. 215); Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219 (58 S. E. 218); Daughtry v. S. & S. Ry. Co., 1 Ga. App. 393 (58 S. E. 230).” Unity Cotton Mills v. Hasty, 19 Ga. App. 590 (2) (91 S. E. 915).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.