Case ID: ga-app_18/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hodges, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

7846.
    Wright v. The State.
    Decided October 18, 1916.
    Indictment for sale of liquor; from Emanuel superior court-judge Hardeman. August 25, 1916.
    
      T. N. Brown, for plaintiff in error.
    
      R. Lee Moore, solicitor-general, contra.
   Hodges, J.

The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the alleged newly discovered evidence, being merely cumulative and impeaching in its nature, did not require a new trial. “The discretion of a trial judge in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be controlled, unless manifestly abused.” Tilley v. Cox, 119 Ga. 867, 872 (47 S. E. 219). Where a motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, and affidavits are introduced, sustaining and disputing this ground of the motion, “the trial judge is the trior of the facts, -and it is his province to determine the credibility of the conflicting facts and contradictory witnesses.” Hayes v. State, 16 Ga. App. 334 (85 S. E. 253). Judgment affirmed.