Hammond v. State
| Citation | 128 S.E. 918,34 Ga.App. 234 |
| Decision Date | 29 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | 16595. |
| Parties | HAMMOND v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
It appearing from a note by the trial judge that he had approved certain portions only of the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, that ground cannot be considered by this court. Burdette v. Crawford, 125 Ga. 577 (3), 54 S.E. 677; Franklin County v. Gillespie, 137 Ga. 567 (1), 73 S.E. 833.
Grounds 2 to 12, inclusive, of the amendment to the motion for a new trial (complaining of rulings upon the admissibility of evidence) fail to show any reversible error.
(a) Several of these grounds contain exceptions to the admission of documentary evidence, but these exceptions cannot be considered, as the evidence is not incorporated in the grounds nor attached thereto as exhibits. Moreover, most of these grounds are not complete and understandable within themselves. To ascertain the alleged errors, the exceptions insisted upon, and their materiality, would require a reference to other portions of the record.
Ground 13 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial is expressly disapproved by the judge.
Under the facts of the case, no harmful error is shown by the remaining two special grounds of the motion (both numbered 14), complaining of instructions given in recharging the jury.
The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.
Error from Superior Court, Heard County; C. E. Roop, Judge.
H. B. Hammond was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error. Affirmed.
See, also, 32 Ga.App. 763, 124 S.E. 810.
Smith & Millican, of Carrollton, D. B. Whitaker, of Franklin, and Terrell & Terrell, of Greenville, for plaintiff in error.
W. Y. Atkinson, Sol. Gen., of Newnan, and L. B. Wyatt, of La Grange, for the State.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial