Case ID: ga_176/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Russell, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PADGETT v. THE STATE.
    No. 8958.
    January 20, 1933.
    Rehearing denied February 23, 1933.
   Per Curiam.

1. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

2. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial do not show such error as requires a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial.

3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., not participating, and Russell, O. J., and Bell, J., who dissent.

E. K. Wilcox and Copeland, & Dulces, for plaintiff in error.

George M. Napier, attorney-general, G. 0. Spurlin, solicitor-general, T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, E. A. Sephens, and L. C. Bussell, contra.

Russell, C. J.

I dissent from the judgment of affirmance, because in my opinion the court erred in not sustaining special grounds 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15 of the motion for a new trial. I therefore think the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Bell concurs in this dissent. However, he dissents solely in so far as his judgment is based upon grounds 6, 9, and 10 of the motion for a new trial.