Case Name: Taylor v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1920-12-16
Citations: 26 Ga. App. 80
Docket Number: 11862
Parties: Taylor v. The State.
Judges: Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 80–80

Head Matter:
11862.
Taylor v. The State.
Decided December 16, 1920.
Indictment for discharging pistol on Sunday; from city court of Alma — Judge Luke. September 3, 1920.
Will Taylor was convicted under an indictment charging that on April 18, 1920, he. wilfully fired off and discharged a pistol on Sunday, not in defense of person or property. The State’s witness testified that on Sundajp April 18, 1920, when he and his wife were riding about 150 yards behind a buggy occupied by Will Taylor and Will’s brother, Sam Taylor, on a public road, Will Taylor reached his hand out from the side of the buggy as far as he could, holding a pistol, and discharged the pistol, and that no other person was near where the pistol was discharged. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, denied that he discharged or had a pistol at the time mentioned by the witness. There was no further evidence. The motion for a new trial was based on alleged insufficiency of evidence and on alleged newly discovered evidence of Sam Taylor that he, and not the defendant, discharged the pistol.
I. J. Bussell, for plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
Bloodworth, J.
1. The ground of the motion for a new trial which relates to alleged newly discovered evidence cannot be considered, because it is fatally defective in that the witness upon whose evidence the ground is bared is not supported by the other affidavits required by section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910. Moreover, the only effect of the alleged newly discovered evidence would be to impeach the only witness for the State, and " though the witness sought to be impeached by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the prisoner upon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would be to impeach the witness a new trial will not be granted." Key v. State, 21 Ga. App. 795 (1) (95 S. E. 269), and cases cited.
2. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury; the verdict has the approval of the judge who presided at the trial, and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.