Carr v. Carr, s. 32867 and 32868
| Decision Date | 08 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 32867 and 32868,s. 32867 and 32868 |
| Parties | Mary Beth CARR v. B. W. CARR, Jr. B. W. CARR, Jr. v. Mary Beth CARR. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William F. Woods, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hurt & Pfeiffer, James W. Hurt, Cordele, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the wife in a divorce and alimony action and a cross-appeal by the husband from the decree entered on a jury verdict.
1. The wife's first enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in entering a judgment on the pleadings on the issue of divorce. The wife's original petition sought a divorce on the ground of cruel treatment. The husband counterclaimed, alleging abandonment and cruel treatment. He subsequently amended his counterclaim, alleging the marriage was irretrievably broken and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The wife then amended her petition to deny the marriage was irretrievably broken, but did not withdraw the allegation of cruel treatment.
Dickson v. Dickson, 238 Ga. 672(4), 235 S.E.2d 479 (1977). There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
2. The wife's second enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in ruling out any evidence of the conduct of either party due to the fact that a divorce had been granted on no fault grounds and that the only issue to be resolved by the jury was the amount of alimony.
Anderson v. Anderson, 237 Ga. 886, 892, 230 S.E.2d 272, 276 (1976). There is no merit in this enumeration of error but see Ga.L.1977, pp. 1253, 1256, Code § 30-201.
3. The wife's third enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in refusing to disqualify a juror who was an employee of the husband. The juror was an employee of the Vienna News Observer, and the husband was the publisher and sole stockholder. The husband contended the juror was an employee of the corporation and not an employee of his. As publisher, he is the chief administrative officer of the corporation and the one on whom the prospective juror's continued employment depended.
Code Ann. § 59-704 (Ga.L.1975, pp. 1331, 1332), requires that there be 24 competent and impartial jurors from which to strike a jury. The trial court erred in failing to disqualify this prospective juror. Melson v. Dickson, 63 Ga. 682, 686 (1879); Bryan v. Moncrief Furnace Co., 168 Ga. 825(1), 149 S.E. 193 (1929); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47, 174 S.E. 923 (1934); Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Bunn, 2 Ga.App. 305, 306, 58 S.E. 538 (1907); American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger, 108 Ga.App. 262(1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kesler v. State
...to an individual defendant with the power to discharge employees of a corporate employer who serve as jurors. See also Carr v. Carr, 240 Ga. 161, 162, 240 S.E.2d 50 (1977). On the other hand we do not find that the trial court erred in refusing to excuse juror Hall, who stated her view that......
-
Taylor v. State
...and where he testified on voir dire that he could not be perfectly impartial between the state and the accused. See Carr v. Carr,240 Ga. 161(3), 240 S.E.2d 50 (1977) and cits.; Jones v. Cloud, 119 Ga.App. 697, 706-707(5), 168 S.E.2d 598 (1969); Martin v. State, 44 Ga.App. 567(2), 162 S.E. 1......
- Bruner v. Bruner, 32783
-
In Defense of Voir Dire
...161, 164, 182 S.E. 895, 806 (1935). [49]. Weatherbee v. Hutcheson, 114 Ga. App. 761, 765, 52 S.E.2d 715, 71819 (1966). [50] Carr v. Carr, 240 Ga. 161, 162, 240 S.E.2d 50, 51 (1977) (error not to disqualify prospective juror where sole stockholder of company for which juror worked was party ......