Case Name: ALMAND v. MAXWELL
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1897-01-21
Citations: 100 Ga. 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALMAND v. MAXWELL.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
ALMAND v. MAXWELL.
Argued January 8,
Decided January 21, 1897.
Certiorari. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton superior court. March term, 1896.
J. K. Maxwell sued Mrs. Mattie B. Ahnand upon an account for $63.50, made up of numerous items consisting mainly of amounts due for work done on vehicles. She pleaded, that she was not indebted to him in any sum, but that he was indebted to her $140 as the value of a surrey and .two delivery wagons, less credits for work done amounting to $5J, leaving due her by him a balance of $83, for which .she prayed judgment. The case was tried by a jury in a justice’s court, and on conflicting evidence a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount for which he sued. By petition for certiorari defendant alleged, that the verdict was contrary to’ law and evidence; and that the court ■erred in admitting the books of plaintiff containing the account sued on, as evidence to the jury, “over objection on thé ground that the same showed alterations,” and in allow ing plaintiff’s counsel, over defendant’s objection (the ground of objection not being stated), to ask the witness Almand (defendant’s husband) where he got the vehicle in •dispute. The record does not show what, if any, alterations .appeared on plaintiff’s books. As a further ground for new trial, defendant set up newly discovered evidence contained in affidavits obtained since the trial, and included in the petition for certiorari.

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.
The superior courts have no power by writ of certiorari to award new trials in inferior judicatories upon the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence. The verdict of the jury in the present case was supported 'by the evidence. No error of law was committed, as appears from (the record, and the judge did not err in overruling tihe certiorari.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.
Maddox & Terrell and $. D. Jtilmson, for plaintiff in •error. 'Oowrtland S. Winn, contra.