Court Opinion

ID: 5567322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 01:04:40.131653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:38.389399
License: Public Domain

Lumpkin, J.

1. When, in certifying concerning the correctness of the grounds of a motion for a new trial, the judge below explains or modifies its recitals of fact, this court, in arriving at a knowledge of whiat actually occurred, will be governed by tbe statements in the judge’s certificate.
. 2. Pursuing this course in the present case at the October term, 1895, this court correctly arrived at the facts; and therefore, the application for a rehearing, based upon the ground that it failed to do so, is without merit. Were it otherwise, such application could not be entertained after the expiration of that term.
. 3. The “extraordinary” motion for a new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, when considered in connection with the counter-showing presented by the State, affords no legal canse for setting aside the original judgment.

Application for a rehearing in the original case denied.

Judgment in the present case affirmed.