Case Name: CARMICHAEL v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1900-08-07
Citations: 111 Ga. 653
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARMICHAEL v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
CARMICHAEL v. THE STATE.
1. The Supreme Court will not pass upon assignments of error requiring a consideration of evidence, when what purports to be a brief thereof is in no sense a brief, but a full report of the examination of witnesses, embracing to a substantial extent palpably needless and irrelevant matter.
2. Newly discovered evidence the only effect of which, if believed, would be to show that a witness sworn at the trial afterwards made statements conflicting with his testimony, affords no cause for reversing a judgment denying a new trial.
Argued July 16, —
Decided August 7, 1900.
Indictment for burglary. Before Judge Harris. Carroll superior court. April term, 1900.
F. N. Cobb, E. B. Merrell, and J. L. Cobb, for plaintiff in error. T. A. Atkinson, solicitor-general, contra.

Opinion:
Lumpkin, P. J.
The plaintiff in error was in the superior court of Carroll county convicted of burglary, and excepted to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. The motion contains the general grounds, and also a ground based on newly discovered evidence.
The document purporting to be a brief of the evidence consists of a full stenographic report of the examination of the witnesses introduced at the trial. It is in dialogue form, and sets forth much irrelevant matter. Even a casual inspection of it shows that there was no attempt whatever to condense or brief the testimony as the law requires. This- court will not, therefore, undertake to pass upon the assignments contained in the motion that the verdict is contrary to evidence and is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence. Southern Mining Co. v. Brown, 107 Ga. 264; Price v. High & Co., 108 Ga. 145, and cases cited.
The newly discovered evidence merely tended to show that a witness sworn at the trial in behalf of the State after-wards made statements conflicting with his sworn testimony. Consequently, the ground of the motion relating to this matter is, under repeated rulings of this court, without merit here.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.