Court Opinion

ID: 5611826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:03:44.868109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:07.896519
License: Public Domain

Broyles, C. J.
1. In the light of the note of the trial judge, tliex’e is no merit in the 9th special gx-ound of the motion for a new trial.
2. The vei'dict was demanded by the evidence and the statement of the defendant; and therefore, if there were any errors in the charge of the court, they were harmless.
3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulco and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

Hubert Rawls, Feagin & Hancock, for plaintiff in error.
Will Gunn, solicitor, contra.