Gate City Gaslight Co. v. Farley

• Decision Date: 13 May 1895
• Citation: 23 S.E. 119,95 Ga. 796
• Parties: GATE CITY GASLIGHT CO. v. FARLEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

23 S.E. 119

95 Ga. 796

GATE CITY GASLIGHT CO. v. FARLEY.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 13, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Grounds of a motion for a new trial, which are expressed in terms so vague, general, or indefinite as not to indicate the nature or character of the errors alleged to have been committed, or which embrace utterly superfluous and unnecessary matter, such as lengthy colloquies between counsel on opposing sides, or between counsel and the court tedious recitals of irrelevant facts, statements taken from the stenographic notes of the trial, and other like things to such an extent as to bury the point in question under a great mass of entirely needless phraseology, and thus render it very difficult, if not impracticable, for this court to ascertain what was really the ruling or other conduct of the court complained of, will not be considered.

2. The charge as a whole was clear and correct, and fairly submitted to the jury the issues involved. Taken in connection therewith, the charges complained of contain no error requiring a new trial. The alleged misconduct of the jury was sufficiently explained, the evidence warranted the verdict and the same was not excessive in amount.

Error from city court of Atlanta; Howard Van Epps, Judge.

Action by Mary Farley against the Gate City Gaslight Company. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Brought forward from the last term. Code, §§ 4272a-4272c. Affirmed.

Jackson & Leftwich, for plaintiff in error.

Longin & Golightly, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

1. It is well known to the members of the bar in this state that this court is overburdened with work. From the first day of the October term, 1894, to the day on which our judgment in this case was rendered, nearly 400 cases of that term were heard and disposed of, and we have not yet begun the hearing of cases on the civil docket of the March term, 1895. The constitution requires us to dispose of every case at the first or second term after the writ of error is brought. In order to give each case due consideration, we need the assistance of the bar, not only in the argument of their cases, but in the preparation of the record which is to be examined by the court. Although the tendency of the present day is towards condensation, and to exclude from consideration the "mint, anise, and cummin" of the law, and give judgment on its weightier matters, many members of the legal profession continue the use of verbose, redundant, and antiquated forms, and incumber the records unnecessarily by setting forth in many pages matter the substance of which could be clearly stated in less than one page. In recent years we have frequently had occasion to refer to this subject, and have insisted that counsel should, as far as practicable, condense the records in their cases. See, among other cases, Wiggins v. Norton, 83 Ga. 150, 9 S.E. 607; ...