Ponder v. State, (No. 11788.)
| Decision Date | 09 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11788.) |
| Citation | 105 S.E. 318,25 Ga.App. 768 |
| Parties | PONDER. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1920.
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
Error from City Court of Brunswick; Eustace C. Butts, Judge.
G. F. Ponder was convicted of an offense, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Boiling Whitfield and A. H. Crovatt, both of Brunswick, for plaintiff in error.
F. M. Scarlett, Jr., Sol., of Brunswick, for the State.
BROYLES, C. J. [1] 1. Before exceptions pendente lite can be considered by this court, error must have been originally assigned in the main bill of exceptions upon the exceptions pendente lite, and not merely upon the judgment complained of in the exceptions pendente lite, or such an assignment must be made, by the permission of this court, before the argument of the case here. Jones v. Ragan, 136 Ga. 653, 71 S. E. 1098; Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World v. Warner, 25 Ga. App. 449, 103 S. E. 861; Carhart v. Mackle, 25 Ga. App.——, 103 S. E. 855. An inspection of the original records of those cases (of file in the office of the clerk of the reviewing court) discloses that in the main bill of exceptions in each case error was assigned upon the judgment complained of in the exceptions pendente lite, and not upon the exceptions pendente lite themselves. Under this ruling, the exceptions pendente lite cannot be considered.
2. The motion for a new trial is based upon the general grounds only, and the verdict was amply authorized by the evidence. It follows that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
BROYLES, C. J. Counsel for the plaintiff in error, in their motion for a rehearing of the case, complain that this court, in passing upon the grounds of the motion for a new trial, considered only the ground that alleged "the verdict is contrary to evidence and without evidence to support it." Counsel for the plaintiff in error having argued in their brief only that ground of the motion for a new trial, the other grounds were treated as abandoned.
The question as to whether the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the National Prohibition Act, generally known as the Volstead Act, supersede or abrogate the existing prohibition laws of the state, was attempted to be raised only by the demurrer to the accusation, and, under the ruling in paragraph 1 of the decision in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dist. Grand Lodge No. 18 v. Gardner
...lite, or such an assignment must be made, by the permission of this court, before the argument of the case here." Ponder v. State, 25 Ga. App. 768, 105 S. E. 318, and cases there cited. Under this ruling the exceptions pendente lite cannot be considered. 2. "Where it does not appear that th......
-
Scoggins v. State
...107 S.E. 778 27 Ga.App. 192 SCOGGINS v. STATE. No. 12396.Court of Appeals of Georgia, First DivisionJune 14, 1921 . . Syllabus by ... assigned on the exceptions pendente lite (Ponder v. State, 25 Ga.App. 768, 105 S.E. 318; Devereaux v. State, 26 Ga.App. 429, 106 S.E. 740 [1], and ......
-
Bartlett v. State
...main bill being merely upon the judgment overruling the demurrer, and not upon the exceptions pendente lite themselves (Ponder v. State, 25 Ga. App. 768, 105 S. E. 318), and no assignment of error upon the exceptions pendente lite was made In this court before the case was submitted to the ......
-
District Grand Lodge No. 18, Grand United Order of Odd Fellows of America v. Gardner
...... by the permission of this court, before the argument of the. case here." Ponder v. State, 25 Ga.App. 768,. 105 S.E. 318, and cases there cited. Under this ruling the. exceptions ......