Case ID: ga-app_35/html/0587-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bboyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17358.
    Dill v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1180, n. 74; p. 1202, n. 70.
    Decided July 14, 1926.
    Larceny of cotton; from city court of Polk county—Judge Tison. February 16, 1926.
    
      Mundy & Watkins, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. A. Wright, solicitor, contra.
   Bboyles, C. J.

1. The judge did not err in overruling the grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, as the evidence was impeaching in its character, and there was also a counter-showing .(as to some of this evidence) by the State.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.