Case ID: ga-app_28/html/0771-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Luke, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

13601.
    SWANN v. THE STATE.
    Decided July 12, 1922.
    Indictment for possession of liquor; from Gwinnett superior court — Judge Fortson. April 19, 1922.
   Per Curiam.

The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction. The only special- ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, the material part of which was hearsay and inadmissible; and, moreover, this alleged evidence is not such as would likely cause a different result should a new trial be granted. The court therefore did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

•Judgment affirmed.

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

W. L. Nix, for plaintiff in error.

W. O. Dean, solicitor-general, contra.

Luke, J.,

dissenting. The evidence relied upon to convict the defendant being weak and unsatisfactory; and the alleged newly discovered evidence being, in my opinion, admissible and such as would probably produce a different result upon another trial, 1 think that a new trial should be granted.